Varietas and Subspecies, a Suggestion Towards Greater Uniformity Author(S): Z

Home , Subspecies, Variety (botany)

Varietas and Subspecies, a Suggestion Towards Greater Uniformity Author(s): Z. J. Kapadia Source: Taxon, Vol. 12, No. 7 (Aug. - Sep., 1963), pp. 257-259 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1217875 . Accessed: 29/03/2014 10:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.238.37.228 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions a taxonomical unit, a nominal taxon, or the name (or names) of a taxon. Since there is no reliable definition of the term "taxon" in the "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" (e.g. Art. 49), the use or abuse of the term in its meaning of a name of a taxon can cause - as is exemplified by several instances - "immaterial authorship", i.e. "authorship" of "combinations" without alteration of the rank of a certain taxon or of its objective contents, or its transference to another taxon.

Literatur InternationalCode of Botanical Nomenclature Regnum vegetabile, Vol. 23, Utrecht 1961 Internationale Regeln fir die Zoologische Nomenklatur, beschlossen vom XV. Internationalen Kongref fir Zoologie Deutscher Text Frankfurt am Main 1962

JANCHEN, E. 1942 - Ost. Bot. Zeitschr., 91: 209-298. -- 1956/60 - Catalogus Florae Austriae I. Wien. MAYER. E. 1952 - Verzeichnis der Farn- und Bliitenpflanzen des slowenischen Gebietes: 311- 313, Ljubljana 1952 (zit. nach JANcHEN 1956-1960). SCHWARZ,0. 1939 - Rep. spec. nov. 46: 53-56. Soo, R. v. 1929 - Rep. spec. nov. 26: 179-219.

VARIETAS AND SUBSPECIES A SUGGESTION TOWARDS GREATER UNIFORMITY Z. J. Kapadia (College Station, Texas)

In recent years, several articles have appeared on the use of subspecies and varietas for classification below the species level (Boivin, 1962, Clausen, 1941, Fosberg, 1942, Heywood, 1956, Hinton et al., 1939, Meikle, 1957, Rosendahl, 1949, Rothmaler, 1954, van Steenis, 1957, Weathetby, 1942). The present note attempts a very brief review of some of the prevailing viewpoints and to present a workable suggestion, which it is hoped, may lead towards greater uniformity. Some taxonomists consider and use the terms subspecies and variety interchangeably and many of these prefer to use subspecies in place of variety since the latter term has been commonly adopted for cultivated variants. However, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, from the very beginning, has considered the subspecies as a category intermediate in rank between species and varietas. Moreover, Boivin (1962) has clearly shown the correct use of the term subspecies, to be a category between species and varietas and to which varietates must be relegated. With the recent publi- cation of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (1961) mucli of this confusion has been further clarified. Article 10 of the Code states:

Cultivar is an international term for the category known in different languages by different names, for example, "variety" in English, "variete" in French. "variedad" in Spanish, "Sorte" in German, "sort" in the Scandinavian languages 257

This content downloaded from 212.238.37.228 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions and in Russian, "ras" or "varieteit"in Dutch, and "razza"or "varieta"in Italian. Anyone is free to use the term cultivar or one of the equivalent terms. When the terms variety, vari6t6 and their variants are used in the sense of the cultivar, confusion with the term "varietas" should be avoided by a suitable explanation. Varietas is a botanical category betweenspecies and forma ... Consequently,we now have two different terms, "varietas" a botanical category between species and forma and the "cultivar" (variety, Sorte, variete, variedad, etc.) for infraspecific classification of cultivated plants.

One prevailing opinion on the use of varieties and subspecies was aptly expressed by van Steenis (1957): (59) The rank of a subspecies should be reserved for and confined to replacing partial populations i.e. natural groups of the same general nature as species but exhibiting a lower degree of morphological differences and/or reproductive iso- lation and for morphologicallyslight distinct polyplotypes. (60) The rank of a variety should be used for infraspecific distinguishable taxa, which show no replacement and for other groups of genetically deviating para- morphs (p. CCXXVIII). In natural population systems, however, these kinds of differences are not always clearcut and distinct. Consequently,it is not always a simple matter to decide as to what infraspecific category a group of plants might be placed - when one has to choose from an assortmrentof various kinds of dissimilarities. On the other hand, it seems more logical that infraspecific classification should be a mere continuation of the principles used in supraspecific classification. The division below the rank of genus is the species. If the species within the genus demonstrate distinct patterns of affinities and dissimilarities, they are grouped into subgenera or sections. However, many genera are without subgenera or sections but all contain species. Moreover, in the infrageneric grouping of the species, certain categories of differences per se, are not employed in the determination of the rank (section or sub- genus); as many characters as possible are used to arrive at an overall picture as to whether the different species groups are worthy of a subgeneric rank or a sectional one. Infraspecific division of a species should be dealt with on a similar basis. The rank below the species is the varietas. If the differentvarietates show any patterns of affinities, then they should be grouped under the rank of subspecies. Thus, every divisible species population will have varietates, and only those species populations which indicate distinct groupings of their varietates, will have subspecies, in addition to their varietas. Such a treatment of intraspecificclassification will be in accordance with supraspecific classification and ultimately should lead to greater uniformity in botanical taxonomy of groups below the species level.

References BoIvIN,B. 1962 - Persoon and the subspecies. Brittonia 14: 327-331. CLAUSEN,R. T. 1941 - On the use of the term "subspecies" and "variety". Rhodora 43: 157-167. FOSBERG,F. R. 1942 - Subspecies and variety. Rhodora 44: 153-157. HEYWOOD, V. H. 1958 - The interpretation of binary nomenclature for subdivisions of species Taxon 7: 89-93. HINTON, A. C. et al. 1939 - A discussion of "subspecies" and "varieties" arranged at the request of the Association for the study of Systematics. Proc. Linn. Soc. London (Part 2) 151: 88-114.

258

This content downloaded from 212.238.37.228 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MEIKLE, R. D. 1957 - What is a subspecies? Taxon 6: 102-105. ROSENDAHL,C. 0. 1949 - Symposium on botanical nomenclature. VIII. The problem of sub- specific categories. Amer. Journ. Bot. 36: 24-27. ROTHMALER,W. 1954 - Tenninologie des subdivisions de l'espece. Rapport. VIII Congr. Int. Bot. Paris, sect. 3: 67-74. STEENIS,C. G. G. J. VAN,1957 - Specific and infraspecificdelimitation. Fl. Males. ser. I, 5(3): CLXVII-CCXXXIV. WEATHERB',C. A. 1942 - Subspecies. Rhodora 44: 157-167.

NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS S. G. Harrison (Cardiff)

In the past, the terms "variety" and "form" have been used rather indiscriminately in naming cultivated plants, regardless of whether or not they could be considered equivalent to a botanical "varietas" or "forma". The term "cultivar" has been available for several years and has gained favour as a relatively unambiguous word for general use. In the course of revising a Handbook of Coniferae, I have had some difficulty in deciding what to do with so-called "varieties" which should be defined more ac- curately as either forms or cultivars. One cause of this difficulty is that the definition given in Article 28 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is more restrictive than the definition given in Article 5 of the International Code of Nomen- clature for Cultivated Plants. According to Article 28: "Plants brought into cultivation from the wild which differ in no fundamental way from the parent stocks bear the same names as are applied to the same species and infraspecific taxa in nature. Plants arising in cultivation through hybridization, mutation, or other processes which tend to establish recognizable differenlces from the parent stocks receive epithets, preferably in common language (i.e. fancy epithets), markedly different from the Latin epithets of species or varieties. Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants in cultivation appear in the "International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants". This is satisfactory as far as it goes. It caters for plants brought into cultivation from the wild which do not differ from their parents, and for plants arising in cultivation which do differ from their parents; but it ignores an important group of cultivated plants, those which were found in the wild state and were collected and brought into cultivation primarily because they differed from their parents in some noticeable character, which may not have been sufficiently fundamental to be recorded by botanists. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, Article 5, defines the term cultivar as denoting: "An assemblage of cultivated individuals which is distinguished by any characters (morphological, physiological, cytological, chemical or others) significant for the purposes of agriculture, forestry or horticulture and which when reproduced (sexually or asexually), retains its distinguishing features". It does not state that a cultivar must have arisen in cultivation. Thus, it permits a broader definition of the term "cultivar" than is possible at present under the Botanical Code. When a variety or form is known to be established in the wild and has been described as such, its appropriate botanical rank is maintained when it is brought into cultivation. But the majority of "garden varieties" or "garden forms" do not have an 259

This content downloaded from 212.238.37.228 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions