Proposals for Modernizing the International Rules of Nomenclature for Hybrids Author(S): Carl O

Proposals for Modernizing the International Rules of Nomenclature for Hybrids Author(s): Carl O. Grassl Source: Taxon, Vol. 12, No. 9 (Dec., 1963), pp. 337-347 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1216328 . Accessed: 27/03/2014 11:09

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 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Practical consideration. It is clear that the PROPOSAL 99. Article 41. - From 1 Jan 65, to point I am attempting to make must apply with be considered validly published for the recept- decreasing force in the Upper Tertiary and ion of fossil species, a fossil or Recent genus Pleistocene, and that any solution must be must include in its diagnosis a time-range gradationalin effect. circumscription of those features definitely observed which must be substantiated by solution. In some it should Suggested way evidence from species adequately covering that become on all to mandatory palaeobotanists period of time. emend the diagnosis of any extant genus which is used for fossils by inserting a time-range PROPOSAL100. Article 43. - From 1 Jan 65, circumscriptionwith specified limits indicating A taxon of fossils below the rank of genus is which features of the diagnosis are known to not validly published unless the name of the have been constant for the period. This would genus to which it is assigned is validly publish- have to be justified by qbotation of a continued in the sense of having a time-range circum- ous list of species at intervals of not less than scription explicitly stated (see 41). a or 5 million stratigraphical "Stage" (say) - years, back as far as the record proposed for Article 58. No change at present. inclusion. It would then be clear that unless more than Some justification one type of organ was involved such emend- 1. The which has ation of a genus would be a serious step. Such present procedure persisted emendation would also mean that botanists unplanned is pre-Evolutionaryin concept. working on Recent plants would be forced to 2. The genus as a convenience should be a consider the whole material including fossils useful vehicle. when monographing a genus. 3. Palaeozoologists are beyond this difficulty, The following changes in the Code would in that they now use extant taxa for fossils be necessary: with proper caution.

PROPOSALS FOR MODERNIZING THE INTERNATIONAL RULES OF NOMENCLATURE FOR HYBRIDS Carl 0. Grassl (Canal Point, Florida) )

The internationalCode of Botanical Nomen- Appendix I. Art. H. 1 indicates that the botan- clature (1961 edition) as it applies to hybrids is ical Code sanctions two different ways of de- very unsatisfactory in many ways as shown signating hybrids and consequently has been in this report. The present rules regulating the misinterpreted as meaning that hybrid taxa naming of interspecific hybrids, for example, may be named in two different ways. The two go back to the Vienna Code, at the beginning different ways of designating hybrids were of this century,with the result that the forward carefully compared by Elbert L. Little, Jr. thrust of plant breeding in recent decades has (Taxon IX (8): 225-231, Oct.-Nov., 1960). His largely bypassed the old concepts and practices comparison stresses the fact that the formula of taxonomists as related to hybrids. The cle- way, as contrasted with the "specific" epithet avage between plant scientists in general and way, of designating hybrids is authorizedbut is taxonomistsis increasing rapidly, and although not a name or subject to the rules. the schism is partly the result of misinter- Nevertheless, formulascan be used as names pretations of the rules by non-taxonomists, and many are being used as such in preference much of the misunderstanding has resulted to "specific" epithet names. Such use has been from taxonomists'lack of interest in hybrids. sanctioned by Art. 38 of the InternationalCode The most important rule that has been mis- of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (1961 interpreted by plant scientists is Art. H. 1 edition). Although very many cases could be listed for an example of the use of formulas as *) Crops ResearchDivision, AgriculturalRe- names in preference to Latin binomials sec search Service, United States Department of Taxon IX (8). On page 225, Elbert L. Little, Jr. Agriculture. indicates that "The Committee on Forest Tree

337

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Improvement of the Society of American grapherof Rosa Section Pimpinellifoliaerealiz- Foresters, Richard T. Bingham, Chairman,re- ed that if he accepted the 6 species taxa, he presenting forest geneticists and foresters in would also have to accept 15 bi-species hybrid the United States, took the following action in taxa of species rank, he might give the 6 species 1958: (1) to designate interspecific hybrid a more careful consideration. forest trees, both artificial and natural, by Other reasons for the cleavage between formulas, not by Latin binomials;". taxonomistsand other plant scientists could be This preference for formula designations by enlarged upon at this point but will be left for plant scientists is based on the fact that for- the comments to the various proposals sub- mulas are the most efficient and convenient mitted. The large number and validity of the way of naming and referring to hybrids. Since points of view of the plant scientists indicate taxonomists do not accept a formula design- that the time has come for taxonomists to re- ation as constitutinga valid name, two different view their principles and programs as they sets of names for hybrids are being proposed relate to hybrids. Only by adjusting to the and used without concern for the duplication changing insights and needs of plant scientists of effort and lack of cooperation between in general can taxonomistsavoid being bogged taxonomists and plant breeders. The double down in a dogmatic professionalismof the past. naming of hybrids must be stopped if taxon- In spite of the mess, I am confident that taxonomists are to retain control of the rules regulat- omists are not completely to blame for the ing the naming of hybrids. A hybrid can no present problems in the classification of hyb- longer be considered by taxonomistsas an odd rids and that they are willing to meet the plant or herbarium specimen designated by a hybridizerspart way. formulaif it is not consideredimportant enough The proposals advanced are intended to to be given a name. bring about such a compromiseand to simplify The idea that a hybrid should be named only the botanical Code as it refers to hybrids. The "whenever it seems useful or necessary" (Art. proposalsare made with the hope that they will H. 1) is another reason for the lack of confi- be critically evaluated by agriculturists,forest- dence in taxonomists held by many plant ers, and horticulturists- the plant scientists breeders. A plant hybridizer considers the that primarily make and use the names - as successful hybridizationof two species or taxa well as by taxonomistswho have the responsi- of higher rank to be an importantcontribution bility of organizing hybrid taxa and using the which should be recorded. In contrast, some information about them in organizing and taxonomists, if G. D. Rowley (Taxon X (7): clarifying other taxa. 211-212, Sept., 1961) may be taken as an example, being fearful that "there would be a PROPOSAL126. Delete last sentence of Art. 4 plethora of binomials if a new epithet were and at the end of Art. 3 insert: invented for every cross,... this should be Note 2. Hybrids belong to a number of taxa done only for hybrids of outstanding botanical, of consecutively subordinate ranks, among horticultural,or economic importance."Rowley which the rank of hybrids involving species of continued, "Having raised all possible crosses the same genus is basic and equal to and between the diploid roses of the Section Pim- identical with that of species. Thus hybrids in- pinellifoliae, I could go ahead and invent for volving species of the same genus belong (are them 15 "specific" epithets as against the 6 to be assigned) to the genus in question,hybrids belonging to the parent species, but it would involving genera of the same family belong to be a worthless pastime". What Rowley does the family, etc. not consider is that his example could also be PROPOSAL127. Recommendation 3 A used to show that only one species consisting of 6 subordinate taxa such as subspecies or Monographersof a genus are responsible not varieties can serve the same purpose and nam- only for treating all taxa of interspecific hybrids ing or recognizing the other 5 species might within the genus but also for all taxa of inter- also "be a worthless pastime". generic hybrids beginning alphabetically with The importantfact to recognize here is that the genus in question. Other intergeneric the formation of hybrid taxa is a means of hybrids of which the genus is a part should be keeping taxonomists informed so that all taxa listed if not treated. may be made more useful and significant. Comments: Many plant breedersbelieve this to be true and Hybrids are plants and as such belong to a are discouragedby the lack of interest by many number of taxa of consecutively subordinate taxonomists in such information. If a mono- ranks according to Art. 2 of the Code. The last 338

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions sentence of Art. 4 of the Code implies that and their hybrid offspring.Besides Fl individu- hybrids are taxa with special ranks treated in als a hybrid taxon may consist of F. or later Appendix I. However, the ranks of hybrids generation segregates, backcross populations have not been clarifiedin the Code and in order to either parent as well as amphidiploid and to avoid further confusion proposal 126 is ne- polyploid derivatives, etc. cessary. For the indication of the name of a hybrid Recommendation3 A is desirable as it re- taxon to be accurate,complete, and distinguish- minds taxonomists that a hybrid taxon is just able from a genetical formula, and in order as important as a species taxon. In some re- that the author and publicationmay be readily spects, such as morphology for example, a verified, it is necessaryto cite after the name of hybrid taxon may be more important than a a hybrid taxon the year of the date of first valid species. publication. In general taxonomistshave never consider- Note 1. When polymorphic parental species ed hybrids as important as species or equal in are involved, infraspecific taxa are not to be rank. This attitude, based on a very narrow included in the name. view of what constitutes a hybrid taxon, must Note 2. When the hybrid is of experimental be changed if cooperationwith plant breeders origin, the name is not to be complicated by is to be To is an im- obtained. be frank, there the addition of the sign $ to the epithet of the portant difference between species and hybrid parent producing the female gamete and c6 to taxa. A species has a circumscriptionbased on the epithet of the parent producing the male plants that are morphologically more or less gamete. like a the nomenclatural given individual, type, Note 3. All names while a taxon has a validly published hybrid hybrid circumscription a of Latin form based on a of of which are designated by "specific"epithet group plants many an X must be as more or less different from each other but preceded by rejected hybrid names and formula names which which have at least one character in replaced by unique are to be consideredas been common with each of two different having designated parent and if that The difference between the two kinds validly published simultaneously species. is the earliest date. of taxa favors hybrid taxa as regardscomplexity and species taxa for uniformity and total num- Note 4. When a hybrid taxon of species rank ber of individuals. From one point of view, a is to be subdivided, the name of a subordinate or individual is to be accord- hybrid taxon can be considered an unstable, group designated fluctuating, inbetween group of plants that ing to the InternationalCode of Nomenclature bridges the gap between two other fairly stable for Cultivated Plants and may be a clone (cl.), a groups. Evolutionists consider a hybrid po- cultivar (cultivated variety cv.), or a notho- pulation to be an inclusive entitywith emergent morph (nm.) if in Latin form but not in italics. characteristicsthat transcendthe summationof Examples: Digitalis lutea X purpurea not the attributes of the component species. The Digitalis lutea $ X D. purpureaC6; Salix aurita importance of hybrids to evolution is evident X caprea, not Salix X capreola; Potentilla atro- in that every species can be considered as sanguinea X formosa not Potentilla atrosan- having been produced by the division or fusion guinea-formosa;Verbascum lychnitis X nigrum of parts of parental species. To give bispecies not Verbascumnigro-lychnitis or VerbascumX hybrid taxa a rank lower than that of a species schiedeanum; Camellia japonica X saluenensis would greatly complicate any system of class- 'Donation' not Camellia (japonica X saluenen- ification of plants. sis) 'Donation'; Lilium humboldtii X pardali- num or (BellinghamHybrids) 'Shukson'. PROPOSAL 128. Alter Art. H. 1 to read as follows: PROPOSAL129. Recommendation H. 1A Taxa of hybridsor putative hybridsinvolving Although "specific" epithets of Latin form two species of the same genus are named (de- preceded by an X must be rejected as botanical signated) by a formula consisting of the name names of hybrids,they may be used as common of the genus followed by the specific epithets names when designating collective hybrid of the two parents in alphabetical order con- groups of species rank or lower. When used in nected by the multiplication sign (X). this fashion as a common collective name of Such hybrid taxa are collective names of species rank, the epithet must be enclosed in species rank in that the same designation parentheses like a common name in a modem (formula) is used for all plants resulting from language. When used as a common name for the interbreeding of the same parent species Fl plants of subspecific rank, the epithet is to 339

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions be considered a nothomorph and enclosed in form preceded by an X need only do a little single quotation marks as a cultivar when the reading outside their own field to realize that abbreviationfor nothomorphis not used. such epithets in large part are rejected or by- Comments: passed by the major ,groups of workers for The revision of Art. H. 1 and Note 3 are the whom they have been ostensibly formed. Such are obsolete irrelevant as most importantparts of proposal 128 and must epithets clearly and botanical names of them are not be accepted in principle if not in wording if and many remem- the present problems with hybrid taxa are to validly published. Taxonomistsshould be resolved. ber that there is no way by which they can force such as for To a the is a general scientists, foresters, hybridizer, multiplication sign to use of Latin means of and indicating the two example, "specific" epithets separating form an X instead of formula involved in a cross. The taxonomisthas preceded by parents names. There is also no that to the apparently way assigned a second meaning multiplication taxonomists can the common of as used in and stop practice sign binary "specific" "generic" and new formula names of names of taxonomists proposing using hybrids. By doing this, without a Latin confuse some but do hybrids published description hybridizers fortunately or Taxonomists not know of the occasions when such designated type specimen. binary should realize that as as their names have been as the long "specific" "specific" interpreted of is more two of a cross. multi- epithet way designating hybrids parents Likewise, the and than in front of complicated, inefficient, confusing plication sign "generic" hybrid their formula have no names a sentence or way, they satisfactory starting paragraphpuzzles alternative but to formalizethe formula as an way and exasperates many editor and printer. the correct and make it without In other the cannot only way legal words, multiplication sign a Latin diagnosis and specimen. have two different meanings in hybrid names type If the so-called formula way of designating without causing confusion. hybrids is not a name, this way of designating Art. H. 1 states that hybrids "are designated hybrids becomes a genetical formula and can by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or be interpretedonly as referring to F1 individu- necessary, by a name". Since the name, al- als. Similarly, the so-called "specific" epithet to the same as names ot though "subject rules way of designatinga hybrid, although consider- species", is actually a different formula consist- ed a name must by associationand by definition ing of "the multiplication-sign X before the in paragraph 4 in Art. H. 1, be limited to a ("specific") epithet", there supposedly is group of Fi individuals. Interpreted this way, permissionto designate a hybrid taxon by two such a "specific"epithet does not have specific different names or designations at the same rank, even though handled as a species, as the time in contradiction to Arts. 11 and 34. The group of Fl individuals is only a part of the two designations have also been considered as hybrids potentially available from the inter- alternative names in that either can be used to breeding of two species. Since Appendix 1 is designate the same hybrid taxon. considered "an integral part of the Code" (see According to Principle IV each taxonomic page 12 of the Code) it follows that "The use group can bear only one correct name. To of a binary combination for an infraspecific bring Art. H. 1 in line with Principle IV and taxon is not admissible" according to Art. 24. Arts. 11 and 34, it is necessary to reject one of "A new name published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 the two ways of designating hybrid taxa. Pro- without a clear indication of the rank of the posal 128 recommends that the designation by taxon is not validly published" according to an X followed by a "specific" epithet of Latin Art. 35. Also, any such "specific" epithet based form is the way to be rejected. Such design- on a type that is not an Fi hybrid would be in ations were selected for rejection because they errorand consequently illegitimate. represent the permissive way rather than the No way of designating hybrids from F2 or obligatory formula way and would bring on backcross populations, etc., is authorized in the least confusion. Furthermore,as very ade- Art. H. 1. Hlowever,Art. H. 5 does indicate that quately shown by Elbert L. Little, Jr., "spe- "When" such hybrids, including Fi's, "are cific" epithets of Latin form preceded by an united in a collective taxon, the sulxivisions X are very inefficient in various ways, partic- are classed under the binary name applied to ularly in that to be understood,they have to xbe the hybrid population or group like the sub- qualified by a formula. divisions of a species under the binary name of Taxonomists who object to the rejection of the species." Art. H. 5 does not indicate how their "specific" and "generic"epithets of Latin such binary names of pleomorphic hybrids are 340

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions to be formed. The absence of this information The alphabetical order of the epithets in the might imply that the same binary "specific" hybrid name has been made mandatory. This epithet way that is used for Fl hybridsis meant. is necessary to facilitate listing and indexing However, this would result in taxa of different and to avoid the creation of reciprocalformula rank being designated in the same way and names for the same taxon. bring on confusion. For example, when hybrids Notes 1 and 2 are necessary because the are united in a collective taxon, does the new name even though a formula must remain as designation have priority over the older Fi short and simple as possible so that it will designation, i.e., does Art. 60 "In no case does remain a convenient and uniform name. As a name or an epithet have priority outside its implied in the Preamble, information about own rank" apply? Must such Fi designations infraspecific taxa and sex as well as all refer- be reduced to nothomorphstatus and classed ences to authority is best handled in the de- under the new binary name as implied by Art. scription of a hybrid taxon and not in its name. H. 5? Can such new collective taxa still be Note 3 is very necessary if a uniform policy of associated with the genetical formula or is a naming hybrids is to be attained. Rejection of more detailed explanationnecessary? Does the previous names has been qualified in Re- "When"starting Art. H. 5 imply that collective commendation H. 1A to permit the utilization hybrid taxa need not be named and thus permit of the "specific" epithets as common names the existence of hybrids other than Fi's to be and thus conserve some of the serious effort ignored? Still other questions might be raised that has gone into their creation. Individuals and other interpretationsmay be forthcoming, accustomed to think of certain hybrids by such but they would only add support to this plea epithets can continue to do so by publishing for a complete revision of the rules and re- them as nothomorphs or under the Code for commendationsrespecting hybrids. cultivated plants. With reference to Note 4, as The revision of Art. H. 1 lists amphidiploid indicated in an example, the cultivar name derivatives as being included in the pleomor- 'Donation' must not be preceded by the phic hybrids collected together in a bispecies species names in parentheses. Parentheses not hybrid taxon. This is necessary to indicate only complicate the name but are confusing as where and how amphidiploidsare to be class- they may be used to indicate a collective ified. To make an exception to amphidiploids epithet in a modern language according to re- and classify them as species as proposed by commendation42 B of the Code for cultivated G. D. Rowley (Taxon Vol. VII p. 155, Aug. plants. RecommendationH. 1A and later pro- 1958) and accepted in the MontrealCode (1961) posals make such enclosures in parentheses might greatly increase the number of species. mandatorywhen a collective epithet in modern This is in contradictionto the Preamblewhich language is first cited or used in a complex stresses "the avoidance of the useless creation formulaname and broadensthe concept so that of names". To tell a hybridizerthat only some "specific" epithets in Latin form may also be amphidiploids that behave as species should used as such common collective names. This be named is like telling a taxonomistthat only recommendationmay conserve the use of many some species "whenever it seems useful or such epithets and implies that the Code for necessary"should be named. cultivated plants will be brought in harmony If amphidiploids are named as species, a with any rules and recommendationsaccepted hybridizer could cross one with tetraploid in the botanical Code. Also see Art. 15b of the forms of its parents and produce two new Code for cultivated plants. hybrid taxa as well as Fl plants which could PROPOSAL 130. Alter Art. 46 as follows: be doubled to produce 2 new species at the octoploid level. By next making octoploids of In line 4 of Art. 46 insert "HI.1," after "Arts." the two parent species and the first amphi- Comments: diploid species, the 5 octoploid species resulting Paragraph 3 of Proposal 128 requires the could be hybridized in all combinations to amendment of Art. 46 to permit the citation of result in 10 new hybrid taxa as well as 10 new the four numbers of the year when a hybrid species at the 16-ploid level. For those who are name was first validly published instead of the interested, the next number of new species name of the author when indicating the name would be 105 but many of them would look of a hybrid taxon. Proposal 3 is necessary as a very much alike. Amphiploids of bigeneric short and convenient way to differentiate be- hybrid taxa would be even more of a problem tween hybrid names and genetical formulas is as they might result in the breakdown of required and the citation of the author of a generic boundaries. hybrid name will not accomplish this but may

341

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions lead to confusionwith the names of the authors evidence of the correctness or falseness of a of the epithets in a genetical formula or with claim of hybridity and very inadequate as a cultivar names of subdivisions of the hybrid representationof a hybrid taxon. Nevertheless, taxon. hybridizers should be cautioned to prepare herbarium material of hybrids and of the PROPOSAL 131. Alter Art. H. 2 to read: parents involved as many false claims are the Hybrids or putative hybrids between infra- results of incorrectlyidentified parents. specific taxa of the same species are to be A formula designation can be considered as named in accordance with the International following Principle II and Art. 37 in that the Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. hybrid group designated by a formula can be They are to be given clone, cultivar, or notho- determined by means of the nomenclatural morph names which are to be attached to the types of the parent groups. When a hybrid species name as common names in a modern taxon is defined as consisting of all plants re- language without italics. When considered sulting from the interbreeding of two parent desirable, the name may be in Latin form as a groups, and such plants have at least one unique nothomorphbut must follow the same rules as character in common with each of the two common names in a modern language. parent groups, the relationship to the parents When a common collective epithet for all is being stressed and the recognition of a given possible hybrids from the interbreedingof two plant as a hybrid largely depends on a compar- infraspecific taxa is required, it may be formed ison with the parent groups and not with an- from a cultivar name by the addition of a word other hybridwhich may have a different group- such as hybrids, group, cross, grex, etc. to ing of unique characters. indicate the collective natureof the taxon. Such Similarly, a Latin description of a hybrid common collective epithets would be placed in taxon would have to be based on a single in- single quotation marks like cultivar names in dividual selected as the type and thus be re- order to indicate their subspecific rankand thus presentative of only one individual and in no distinguish them from those in parentheses way circumscribe a group of morphologically with specific rank. distinct individuals as complex as a hybrid Comments: taxon. Furthermore, much of the important As indicated in Note 1 of Proposal 128, in- morphological information about a hybrid formation about infraspecific taxa should not taxon is not available until later generationsand be included in the name of a hybrid. This is backcross populations are made and studied particularly true of hybrids between infra- and consequently hybridizershavevalidreasons specific taxa of the same species as the botanical for objecting to the need for a Latin diagnosis. Code lists many subordinate ranks and their Also, hybridizers in general are not familiar use in a name would be confusing. Also see with Latin and would consider any regulation Recommendation42A of the Code for cultivat- insisting on a Latin description as constituting ed plants. an arbitrary imposition and breach of cooperation as well as an ignoble means of PROPOSAL 132. Insert at the end of Art. 7 a isolating the work of taxonomists from the new note as follows: work and view of non-taxonomists. Note 9. Taxa of hybrids are typified by the When considering proposals 132 and 133, types of the species constituting the parents. taxonomistsshould realize that there are many more plant breeders than taxonomistsand that PROPOSAL 133. Change Art. 36 to include the plant breeders are the ones making and de- hybrids to be excepted from the need for a scribing the great majorityof hybrids. If taxon- Latin diagnosis by placing "hybrids" after omists do not assert a healthy leadership in this Algae in line 2. tremendous development which will result in Comments: more hybrid taxa than the classical ones to Proposals 132 and 133 eliminate the need which they are accustomed, they deserve to for a new type specimen and a Latin descript- be replaced by plant breeders who even now ion for hybrid taxa. are becoming concerned about the importance The formula way of designating a hybrid and classification of many species and genera taxon indirectly refers to two type specimens which hybridize readily. Taxonomists can in the epithets of the parents and the design- maintain their leadership only by taking part ation of another type would be confusing as it in the development and cooperating with the could not be a nomenclatorial type. At best, plant breeders. such a specimen would only be very partial The principal objections of hybridizers to 342

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions the present Code have been largely resolved by "generic" name and "specific" epithet unless the first few proposals. The proposals that published earlier. follow are largely refinements and primarily Note 2. The use of the name of only one pa- aimed at simplifying and clearing up relatively rent species as part of a putative hybrid taxon is minor points. Therefore, further comments will permissible only when the other parent is un- be held to a minimum. known or of uncertainorigin. In such cases the formula consists of the known listed PROPOSAL 134. Alter Art. 50 to read: species first followed by the multiplication sign and When the status of a taxon a bearing binary sp. following the genus name of the second name is altered from to the species hybrid, parent if known. When both parent species are name becomes and binary species illegitimate unknown, the putative hybrid is to be de- is carried as a synonym of the hybrid taxon. scribed as a teratologicspecimen or as a species. When a hybrid taxon is based on two species Such taxa are subject to revision when the un- of or taxa higher rank, which are united, the known parent or parents is discovered and the name hybrid (formula) becomes illegitimate incomplete name becomes a synonym of the being now nomenclaturallysuperfluous. completed formulaname. When a taxon which has putative hybrid Note 3. A formula name is been named as a name of hybrid changed binary "specific" when a botanical name or names in the formula Latin form is found to be a rather than species name is for union or a the name becomes the changed, example, by hybrid, binary specific division of genera or or of name. Such a name is considered a species by adoption specific an earlier name. Such a in formula is new combination with the author and change original to be indicated as a new combination so that status indicated in parentheses. it may be recognized and indexed. When such Salix X Example: The binary name glaucops new hybrid names are the citation DC. was cited, year Anderss. (in Prodr. 16(2): 281, 1868) of the original name is placed in parentheses of a published as the name hybrid. Later, Ryd- followed by the year of publication of the new berg (Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 1: 270, 1899) combination. altered the status of the group to that of a Note 4. A formula of a If this view is accepted, the name must hybrid name, given species. date and when found based on be cited as Salix glaucops (Anderss.pro hybr.) publication, error is to be and indicated as an Rydberg. rejected errorso that it may be recognized and indexed. PROPOSAL 135. Alter Art. H. 3 to read: Such rejection is not to interfere with the Taxa of or putative hybridsinvolving correct use of the same hybrid formula name hybrids a species of two genera are designated (named) at later date. by a formula.The formulaconsists of the names PROPOSAL136. Recommendation H. 3 A. of the two parents in alphabetical order of the genera connected by the multiplication sign Although rejected for use as botanical names (X). for generic hybrids,such "generic"or "specific" Examples: Aspleniumnplatyrneuron X Camp- epithets may be used in certain cases for de- tosorus rhizophyllus,not X Asplenosoruseben- signating collective hybrid groups of generic oides or Asplenium X ebenoides. rank but without an X and not in italics. When When a collective epithet for all generic used in this fashion as a collective hybrid name hybrids which involve the same two genera is of generic rank it must be enclosed in square required, the taxon is designated by a formula bracketslike a common name in modern langu- consisting of the ,generic epithets in alpha- age. A "generic" epithet may be used as a betical order connected by the multiplication common collective name in square brackets sign. Such a taxon may be used to head lists of only for the first generic hybrid to which it has generic hybrids involving different combin- been applied. If other hybrids involving differ- ations of species from the two genera, but ent species of the same two genera have been cannot be used in formulas to designate com- named, they may be given a common collective plex hybrids. name in square brackets consisting of or con- Note 1. All validly published hybrid names structed from the "specific" epithet of the designated by "generic"epithets of Latin form "generic" hybrid binomial. preceded by an X and followed by a "specific" epithet must be rejected andreplaced byformu- PROPOSAL137. Recommendation 1I. 3 B. la names. Such formulanames will be consider- Bigeneric hybrid taxa are to be indexed ed as originating at the same time as the under both genera with the principalreference 343

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions after the alphabeticallyfirst genus name and a first followed by the multiplication sign and cross reference after the second. the other parent represented by a common collective name. PROPOSAL138. Recommendation H. 3 C. The name of a complex hybrid of which both When an author publishes an account of a parents belong to ordinary or complex hybrid new hybrid taxon, a copy of the report or a taxa is designated by a formula consisting of notice of the name of the taxon and place of the common collective names of the parents in publication should be forwarded by the author alphabetical order connected by the multi- to the organization or committee responsible plication sign. for taxa. indexing hybrid Papers reviewing When 3 or more taxa such as species or hybrids already produced should also be made are listed in a the available so that the formula names genera together formula, very many formula is to be considered a genetical formula published can also be indexed. already and not a name of a complex hybrid. Comments: Note 1. When three or more species of the Recommendation H. 3 C is of particular same genus are involved, the formula consists because most recent accounts of importance of the species parentlisted first followed by the are in not hybrids published journals normally multiplication and the common collective available to taxonomists. sign name of the bispecific, or multi- the use of Latin trispecific, Although outlawing epithets specific parent in parentheses. for hybrid names will greatly simplify the Note 2. When three or more are in- nomenclature and of names, genera indexing hybrid the formula consists of the track of them will not be easy. volved, species keeping listed first followed the Keeping track of names is not parent by multiplication hybrid only and the common collective name of the the responsibility of taxonomists but also a sign serious of the other scien- bigeneric, trigeneric, or multigeneric parent in responsibility many brackets. tists dealing with cultivated plants. The Inter- square national Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Note 3. Bigeneric hybrids involving genera Nomenclature of the InternationalAssociation from different families or taxa of higher rank for Plant Taxonomy should explore the prob- are designated by a formula like ordinary bi- lems involved in the indexing of hybrid names generic hybrids. with the International Commission for the Note 4. When hybridsare given designations Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants and de- under the Code for cultivated plants such as termine their respective responsibilities.There clone, cultivar (cultivated variety), or notho- is so much overlappingof interests and respon- morph names, such common names are to be sibility in the use and formation of hybrid considered as subordinate parts of a hybrid names that a cooperative undertaking may be taxon and may be attached to a common necessary to avoid duplication. A publication collective name (as a species is attached to a like Index Kewensis for cultivated plants and genus name) and used as a binomial in formulas complex hybrids is desperatelyneeded. The in- to designate complex hybrids. dexing of ordinarybispecific and bigeneric hy- Note 5. When a hybrid taxon has no common brids should remain the responsibilityof taxon- collective name but is represented in part by a omists. clone, cultivar or nothomorph name, the collective name may be based on the sub- PROPOSAL 139. Alter Art. H. 4 to read: ordinate name by enclosing it in brackets Taxa of are like complex hybrids designated corresponding to the rank of the collective which ordinary hybrids except that parents name. this procedurethe subordinatename to such as By belong ordinary hybrid taxa. bi- becomes the type cultivar name and being specific or bigeneric hybrids, must be re- identical to the collective name need not be in the formula a common collect- presented by used in formulas when designating hybrids of ive name. which it is a parent. The common collective name is to be designated according to the regulations of the Inter- Comments: national Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Proposal 139 is necessary as it indicates Plants and is not to be considered an alternative where hybrid names of a botanical nature name under the botanical Code. change over to common names covered by the The name of a complex hybrid of which one Code for cultivated plants. In general, taxon- parent belongs to a species is designated by a omists are not particularlyinterested in hybrids formula consisting of the species parent listed beyond the ordinary bispecific and bigeneric 344

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions level. Therefore,the change over from botanical populations (amphiploids) of bigeneric al to cultivated plant names was designed to hybrids. occur at the or level. so-called ternary complex Note 1. When artificially produced hybrid Nevertheless, the complex level is designated groups are to be subdivided, greater precision in such a way that the botanical part, if there is may be achieved by the use of clone or cultivar one, is listed first. This permits the indexing of common names treated under the International such hybrids under the pertinent species Code of Nomenclaturefor Cultivated Plants. parent. Comment: The notes are necessary if hybrid names are to remain Without a Proposal 141 is desirable as it enables taxon- simple. biparental limit, to use a Latin name italicizati- the and of names omists (without length complexity hybrid in cases where have an could not be controlled and a method of on) they may objection simple to the use of a common name in modern designating all hybrids could not be attained. With reference to Note 5 see Art. 44 of the language. Code for cultivated plants. PROPOSAL142. Insert the rules and recom- Cases such as the diploid roses of Section mendations of Appendix I in Chapter III as a Pimpinellifoliae where the recognition of 15 new Section between 5 and 6 under the head- bispecific hybrids from 6 species makes it ing "Names of Hybrids and some other cate- obvious that 10 trispecific and 9 multispecific gories". are would be safe- hybrids very likely possible Comments: guarded from such designations if the 15 bi- Rules and recommendations hybrids were not considered of suffici- respecting specific names of taxa of should not be ent importanceto be given cultivar or common hybrid groups collective names under the Code for cultivated separated in an appendix from those of other This have been the A or a hybrid groups. separation may plants. trispecific multispecific main reason so little attention has been has more importance if one of the included why given to the names of hybrids. Separation in species cannot be hybridized separately with of the others. Appendix I does not help the general scientists any as will continue to on the Code for The notes are aimed at improving the over- they depend cultivated for regulations respecting lapping portionsof both Codes. They probably plants suggest as many changes of a desirable nature hybrids. for incorporationin the InternationalCode of The fact that all later Articles have to be re- Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants as in the numbered is a problem that is very disconcert- botanical Code. The problem of bringing the ing but which need not occur again. When the Codes into closer harmonyis a serious one that next full edition of the Code is prepared, con- taxonomists should not shirk. An important sideration should be given by the editors to place where a closer harmony can be attained the renumbering of all articles in terms of in is in the treatment of hybrids as essentially all Chapters and Sections so that the future only cultivated plants are hybrids or have been changes within Sections would be necessary derived from hybrids. when deletions or additions were made to the Code. PROPOSAL 140. Alter Art. 40 to read: PROPOSAL143. In case 2 of the For of valid names in proposal purposes publication, Editorial Committee is and amendments Latin form to of a taxon passed, given any part hybrid to the Preamble and Divisions I and II of the are the same rules (any nothomorph) subject to Code will not be considered at the Xth Inter- as hybrid taxa but are not italicized. national Botanical Congress, the following PROPOSAL 141. Alter Art. H. 5 to read: changes will be desirable. Proposals 126-127, 130, 132-134, 140 are to be considered tempor- When a hybrid taxon of any rank is to be divided into collective or taxa the arily as additional Notes of Proposal 128. This parts parts would thereof be a name in Latin form or bring together all regulations respecting may given 142 and distributionof other in a moder language. Such names in Latin hybrids. Proposal would be held over until the next form are to be recognized as nothomorphs proposals (abbreviatedas nm.). Nothomorphdesignations Congress. may be applied to natural botanical groups Comment: such as Fi individuals, amphidiploids, and Since Appendix I in which names of hybrids backcross populations of species hybrids and are treated follows Division III, proposals similar groups or locally stabilized chromosom- concerningit should not be affected by a favor- 345

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions able vote for proposal 2 of the Editorial Com- In this report an effort has been made to be mittee. as partial to taxonomists as to hybridizers. If the poposals seem to favor the it is Final comments: hybridizers, probably because the time is at hand for many Since it has been impracticalto giveadequate changes to be in favor of the plant breeders examples of many of the points discussed in the who produce hybrids. What is of importance, proposals and comments, Table 1, which lists is that a serious effort has been made to propose the more fundamental formulas by which changes which will help taxonomists retain hybrid plant names might be designated, has control of the naming of hybrids and bring the been prepared. For the most part the table is Code of the taxonomistsin closer harmonywith readily understandable but a few items are that available for cultivated plants and the clarified in footnotes. desires of plant scientists in general.

TABLE 1. - The basic formulas by which hybrid plant names would be designated if the new proposals are accepted

Item Applicable No. Rank Hybrid designation (Name): Remarks Code

1 subsp. Genus species 'Name': 'Name' equals cl., cv., or nm. name of infraspecific hybrids B C 2 species Genus A species a X species b: Formula name of bispecific hybrids B 3 subsp. Genus A species a X species b 'Name': cl., cv., or nm. subdivision of bispecific hybrids B C 4 species (Collective name a): equals collective epithet in modern language for item 2 C 5 subsp. (Collective name a) 'Name a': a subdivision name for item 4 which may equal item 3 C 6 species Genus A species c X (Collective name a) 'Name a': mixed name for complex trispecific hybrids B C 7 subsp. (Collective name b) 'Name b': a collective and subdivision name for item 6 C 8 species Genus A species d X (Collective name b) 'Name b': multispecific hybrids B C 9 species (Collective name b) 'Name b' X (Collective name c) 'Name c': multispecific hybrids C 110 genus Genus B species X Genus C species: name for bigeneric hybrids B 11 subg. Genus B species X Genus C species 'Name d': subdivision of item 10 B C 12 genus [Collective name d]: collective epithet for item 10 C 13 subg. [Collective name d] 'Name d': subdivision of item 12 and equal to item 11 C 14 genus Genus A species a X [Collective name d] 'Name d': trigeneric hybrid B C 15 genus [Collective name e]: collective epithet for item 14 C 16 subg. [Collective name e] 'Name e': subdivision of item 15 C 17 genus Genus D species f X (Collective name a) 'Name a': a bigeneric- trispecific hybrid B C 18 genus Genus D species f X [Collective name e] 'Name e': multigeneric hybrid B C 19 genus [Collective name e] 'Name e' X [Collective name f] 'Name f: multigeneric hybrid C

346

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Note to Table 1: ginning with a capital letter. The parentheses B: botanical Code; C: Code for cultivated indicate that the collective epithet is of species plants; cl.: clone; cv: cultivar (cultivated rank (i.e., refers to hybrids between species of variety); nm.: nothomorph (a common name in the same genus). [Collective name] is similar Latin form but not italicized); 'Name' refers to (Collective name) but the square brackets to a common collective or subdivision name in indicate that the collective epithet is of generic modern language or Latin form which is not rank (i.e., refers to hybrids between genera). italicized and which begins with a capital let- Note that the parentheses are used to designate ter. The single quotation marks are equivalent collective epithets of bispecific, trispecific, and to the abbreviation cv. for cultivar according multispecific hybrids whereas square brackets to Art. 17 of the Code for cultivated plants. are used to designate collective epithets of bi- Note that a similar system is used in the sub- generic, trigeneric, and multigeneric hybrids. division of all ranks. (Collective name) refers The alphabetical arrangement of the taxa with- to a common collective epithet in a modern in a formula is indicated by letters of the language or Latin form not italicized but be- alphabet: see particularly items 2, 9, 10, and 19.

PROPOSITIONS ET SUGGESTIONS POUR LE CODE INTERNATIONAL DE LA NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE C. Vaczy (Rumania)

PREAMBULE parmi les Principes, apres modification de la Propositions: redaction. 144. Alinea I. Il serait souhaitable d'olnettre 149. Alineas IX-X. I1 est souhaitable de les les mots: "...... permettant d'6viter jusque transferer parmi les articles (voir les art. 77, 78 ...de noms inutiles. proposes). C'est en realite un principe et par consequent, il devrait etre intercale parmi les prin- Les dispositions du code reposent sur des cipes apres modification du texte. categories hierarchiquement subordonnees: 145. Alinea II. II serait souhaitable d'ajouter principes, regles et recommandations. Toutes a la fin de la proposition, apres le mot "Prin- les dispositions ayant un caractere normatif - cipes": ... qui sont les regles fondamentales de c'est a dire, comprenant une prescription, une la nomenclature botanique, dont les articles et maniere de proceder en quelque sorte - doi- les recommandations doivent etre formules et vent etre traitees parmi les principes, les regles appliques dans l'esprit de ceux-la. ou les recommandations, en fonction de leur 146. Apres l'alinea VI il serait souhaitable importance et effet. Le preambule a le carac- d'intercaler le texte suivant: "Les Appendices tere d'une introduction, done il ne peut com- I et II (voir Prop.) comprennent le Guide pour prendre qu'un texte orientatif general, sans la determination des types et le Guide pour la aucun caractere normatif. Par consequent, il citation de la bibliographie botanique, qui fa- serait souhaitable de traiter les passages du Pre- cilitent l'application correcte des articles et des ambule qui comprennent des dispositions nor- recommandations correspondantes. Enfin, la matives a leurs endroits correspondants (c'est i, liste des Nomina familiarum conservanda et dire, parmi les principes, regles ou recomman- celle des Nomina generica conservanda et reji- dations). cienda forment 1'Appendice III et IV, servant a Ainsi, les textes proposes (alineas I et VIII), assurer l'uniformite de la nomenclature (voir comprenant des principes, devraient etre dis- l'argumentation aux Appendices). poses parmi les principes apres modification de 147. Alinea VII. II serait desirable de trans- leur redaction. ferer la proposition: "Les regles et les recom- L'alinea II devrait etre complete par l'expli- mandations s'appliquent i tous les groupes du cation de la notion des principes, leur effets et regne vegetal, actuels et fossiles" h l'art. 1 pro- leur esprit, comme sont expliquees les regles pose (voir la). Par consequent, la redaction de et les recommandations dans les alineas IV et l'alinea VII devrait etre modifiee. V du Preambule (voir prop.). 148. Alinea VIII. La proposition: "Les seu- L'alinea VIII est un veritable principe, par- les ... jusqu'a ... regles" serait a transfErer cequ'il est une regle fondamentale concernant

347

This content downloaded from 212.238.120.211 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:09:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions