l1~ternational

' ' •• e Probl

by Thierry Lamant Office National des Forets Conservatoire de Resources Genetiques Ardon, France and Guy Sternberg Starhill Forest Arboretum NAPPC Reference Collectioit Petersburg, USA

he nomenclature of the genus Quercus is a nightmare for non-taxonomists. It can be very difficult even for skilled scienti. ts to navigate the jungle of Latin names and conflicting authors and some may find their research results, botanical collections, herbaria, or nursery catalogs con1promised by confusion. Here is an overview of the situ­ ation, presented by non-taxonomists for the benefit of other non-taxonomists. One of the main difficulties encountered with oak name involves different authors applying the sa1ne name to differ­ ent species. An exan1ple can be found 1n the for1nerly known as Q. prinus L. in the United States. This old name covered at ]east two different species (Q.n1ontana Willd. in common usage, but perhaps more correctI y by priority of publication Q.michauxii Nuttall). It is not clear which speci- lnterncztional Oaks tnen Linna eus used for his type. In cur­ rent literature, the name Q. prinus is be­ ing discarded for thi s reason. These species have a close relative, the dwarf chestnut oak Q. prinoides L. Among other names, it has been cal1 ed Q. prinus var. pu1nila Michx. Q. prinus var. hun1ilis Marshall, and Q. prinus var. chincapin F.Michx. But since Q. prinus itself is a confu ·ed name where does Foliage of 1he oak specie\· Quercus buckelyi Nixon and Dorr (fo rmerly known tf\· Quercus texana) this leave the dwarf chestnut oak? It at rhe New Mexico tv/ i /ita r.v lnstitut e in Roswell, seems closest to the yellow chestnut oak Ne\1' M e.ri('O. Q. 1nuh/enhergii Engehn. (some try to pell it Q. n1uehlenbergii, or even Q. n1iihlenhergii). This larger species once

'"0 was thought to be a variety of the dwarf t.. 0 ~ t.. species. Luckily, the point is n1oot be­ ~ ~ :::J ,,; co cau e dwarf chestnut oak is now recog­ >-t.. t.. 0 nized as a distinct species. __.) >- .D 0 Another ca e involves the confused +- 0 _c narne Q. texana Buckley. The name, at u. one taxono1nic level or another, conl­ Fviit;ge r~{ Quercus nuttall i1 £ ../ . Palmer (renamed monly is applied to a small Shutnard-like Quercus texana Buckley due 10 nm}itsion over the type specimen) near Ta.vlm; Adansos. oak found in Texas(= Q. shunzardii var. or subsp. texana). The name also has extending west acros .. the Texas border. been used for Q. gravesii Sudworth, This obviously was not Buckley's intent, another Texas species. Either application and applying Q. texana to this species seetns logical to the casual observer serves only to increa ·e confusion. In since these both are predominantly such cases we son1etin1cs serve the rules, Texas trees. But, again, there was confu­ regardless of logic or consequences, sion regarding the type specimen . The rather than having the rules serve us. unfortunate result is that Q. texana (a Occasionally those n1les n1ay be inter­ attlibuted to Buckley) now has been 'cor­ preted in seen1ing defiance of their un­ rected" in a narrow-viewed interpreta­ derlying purpose, perhaps by an over­ tion of the rules of nomenclature to ap­ enthusiastic taxonon1i st seduced by the ply to Nuttall oak con1monly known in satisfaction of renan1ing a . More the literature as Q. nuttallii E.J.Palmer. likely, some taxonon1ists still re1nain in- A native of the Mi ssissippi River Valley, Nuttall oak is not a Texas , barely contd. on pg . 8

No.1 0 .1 Spring 2000 Page 7 International Oaks

• • •

contd. from pg. 7

tent upon following blindly the rule of plant taxonomists, vvhile such vvork priority of publication, regardles of the continues, to avoid displacing well-es­ re ultant displacement of established tablished names for purely noJnencla­ names. turcll reasons, whether by change in Recent recon11nendations (e.g. at the their application or by resurrection of Tokyo International Botanical Congress) long-forgotten ncunes... " fortunately discourage such a narrow Perhaps a more appropriate solution view. For example, one resolution of the in this particular example would have Tokyo Congress stated in part, 'Con­ been to conserve the established name sidering the great in~portan ce o.f a for Nuttall oak as No1n en Sp ec ~fi c unl stable systent o.f sc ient~fic na1nes of Conservandum. Hopefully, Q. nuttallii for use in the pure and applied will indeed be con erved during the next sciences and in many other do1nains o.f IBC, and poor old Q. texana will be re­ public life and econonty; noting with jected as a nonten COfl:fusum and laid to satisfaction recent important ilnprove­ rest. Many people will wonder what be­ Jnents in the International Code o.f Bo­ canle of Q. texana, whatever species that tanical Nomenclature and ongoing ef- name meant to them. But at least Q. forts to explore new avenues for in­ nuttallii and the new name for Texas creased stability and security in the Shumard oak (Q. buckleyi) are discrete application o.f plant names; the XV In­ and will not be used interchangeably for ternational Botanical Congress urges the sa1ne species.

0) 1... +- l\) c ..0c 0 1... E l\) 0 +- -l V) 1... 1... J: l\) +- ·- -o·- J: w f- >- ~ ..0 >- 0 :::::1 +- (!) 0 J: (g) 0... Quercus castanci folia C. A. !Vley. at the British Na­ Quercu. afares Pomel at the National Arboretun1 des tional Oak Reference Collection, Sir Harold Hillier 8 fu-res, France. Arboretum, Hampshire, EnM iand. International Oaks

The name Q. serrata similarly has been applied by different authors to several species, including one, Castanopsis in­ O'l t.. ~ ..0 dica (Roxb. ex Lindl.) A.D.C., that is not s:: t.. ~ even an oak! The rules of priodty have +­ V) _c caused it to be assigned officially to the +- -o·- UJ Asian species most of us outside of J a­ a(:S >­ ::J pan know as Q. glandulifera Blume. This <...!) frequently cultivated oak now must be © Quercus hboensis Z. K. Zhou (::iyn. Cyclobalanopsis named Q. serrata Thunb., thus confus­ pseudoglauca Y. K. Li er X.M. Wang) at the National ing it with Q. acutissilna Carruth. and Q. Arboretum des Ban·es, France. variabilis Blume, two species which also ( = Q. aegilops Boiss. and Q. aeg ilops are found in Asia and have shared the var. vallonea A. Camus), Q. brantiiLindl., Q. serrata homony1n epithet. If sufficient Q. ithaburensis Decne. var. ithaburensis protest is raised, perhaps Q. serrata also ( = Q. look Kotschy ), Q. ithaburensis var. might be retired as nomen confusun~ and 1nacrolepis Boiss. (= Q. mac rolepis the familiar Q. glandulifera Blu1ne res­ Kotschy, Q. g raeca Kotschy, Q. UITected and conserved. But then again, aegilops Lam. and even Q. ithaburensis the Japanese, who have used the name subsp. macrolepis Hedge & Yaltirik). Q. serrata for years, might have cause This last usage was included in Flora of· to become upset and it is their tree, Turkey and Aegean Islands in 1981. In after all. this list also could be found Q. aegilops Asia also is home to the Scop. and Q. aegilops Griseb. Q. Cyclobalanopsis group (the ring­ aegilops Scop. is simply a synonym of cupped oaks). Discussions have per­ Q. cerris L. (One of its other synonyms sisted for decades regarding the status is Q. lanuginosa Lam., but be careful, of this group, previously considered by because Q. lanuginosa Thuill. is a syn­ some to be a separate genus, but now, onym of Q. pubescens Will d.!) Q. by most, to be a subgenus of Quercus. aegilops Griseb. is in reality Q. trojana So if we find a species listed in old litera­ Webb. (= Q. 1nacedonica DC. and Q. ture as Cyclobalanopsis pseudoglauca grisebachii Kotschy). Y.K.Li etX.M.Wang, how many readers Some taxa are so close} y related that will recognize it as Quercus liboensis their species status is in dispute. For ex­ Z.K.Zhou, corrected in 1998 by Dr. ample, Q. haas Kotschy (= Q. robur var. Zhekun Zhou in a paper published in haas DC.) is close to Q. robur L. (but International Oaks issue number 8? don't confuse it with Q. haas Wenzig). We might turn to Q. aegilops L. as a The subspecies Q. robur subsp. classic example of a nomen conj'usu1n. This name covered Q. vallonea Kotschy contd. on pg. 10

No.1 0 I Spring 2000 Page 9 International Oaks

• • •

contd . from pg. 9

pedunculiflora K.I

()) 0'1 t-. L ~ ~ ..0 ..0s= s= L L ~ ~ +- +- V) V) ...c ...c ·+-- +- "0 'U·- w UJ ~ ~ >- ~ :J ~ c.!> Q) © Turkey oak (Quercus lacvis \Vttlter) of Manchester S1o1e Foresl, Suuth Carolina, US!\ (LEFT); Turkey oak (Qucrcu~ ccrr·i~ 1-.) ji·mn Nomania prm'ena/1('(', ul Starhil/ Forest Arhnretum, Illinois. USA ( RIGH1 ). Internatiorzal Oaks habit 1nuch smaller leaves, young shoots nomenclatural priority and we more downy, and acorns clustered four have selected for some of the taxa we cite or five together (fewer in Q. as examples. These challenges may be castaneifolia). By any name Q. afares is quite defensible, but of course they will as hardy as Q. castaneifolia in the gar­ serve well to reinforce our basic point! dens of Northern France. One recent treatment (the Kew World AI o in the Mediterranean Checklist and Bibliograph) o.f ) Q.calliprinos Webb. (= Q. palaestina lists nearly 3000 synonyms for oaks, re­ Kotschy) is the tree-forn1 subspecies or fen·ing each to what is recommended as relative of Q. cocc~fera L., and many con­ an accepted nrune. There are many famil­ sider it to be a distinct species. Q. iar old names being discarded in that list coccifera is a scn1b oak (3-4m maximum). and some of them wilJ not die quietly. The plant distinguished by some as Q. These problems are likely to haunt us for calliprinos is tallec often with one single years to come. trunk and has n1ore oblong leaves and The oaks add yet another dimension 1nore elongated, linear cup scales on the to all this confusion due to their propen­ acotn (which is 2-3 em long). The acorns sity to fotm interspecific hybrids within are enclosed by half or less in the cup infrageneric groups. The frequent uncer­ (half or Inore for Q. cocc{fera). tainty of parentage, coupled with dis­ Other examp1es include Q. nws Thore, agreements regarding the proper hybtid an oak which pose different questions. epithets and their typographic presenta­ This species is listed in books as being tion, are complex and beyond the scope found in Southwest France and Spain. of this paper. Then there are the diverse But it is not included in a new French treatments for taxonomic groups of spe­ flora as a synonym of any French oak. cie below the rank of genus. Are they The Kew World Checklist and Bibliog­ subgenera, sections, or series? And is the ra]Jhy o.f Fagales classifies it as a syn­ white oak group correctly designated onym of Q.JJetraea Liebl. Q. polycarpa Quercus, Lepidobalanus, Leucobalanus, Schur. and Q. iberica Bieb. also are close or Euquercus? (The correct answer is the to Q. ]Jetraea Liebl. and not universally first one, but the others are more fre­ regarded as distinct. The leaves of Q. quently seen in old or non-taxonomic lit­ iberica Bieb are obovate lanceolate, with erature.) rounded and sotnewhat cordate bases. Are you ready to give up on botanical Young leaves of Q. polycarpa Schur. are names and use vernacular names? The puberu lous beneath, and the acorn cup sol uti on is not so sitnple. For example, has thickened, gibbous scales. how will you reconcile the Turkey oak As soon as our paper is published we (Q. cel'-ris L.) with the turkey oak (Q./aevis anticipate instant feedback from n1any knowledgeable readers, di sputing the contd. on pg. 12

No.lO I Spring 2000 Page 11 International Oaks

• • • contd. from pg. 11

Walter), two species from different conti­ help as well, for those few people who nents and different taxonomic groups? are involved deeply enough with oak no­ (Many of us now do so by using "Turk­ menclature to do so. Someday, the Inter­ ish oak" for the former, but we must re­ national Oak Society may serve as the member that there are many other oaks international registrar for the genus and also native to Turkey.) And what is the coordinate oak nomenclature worldwide, true "white" oak, "red" oak, "black" oak, beginning with cultivars. "scrub" oak, or "swamp" oak? Every re­ For the majotity of us whose expertise gion claims its own. How would you dis­ (and professional life work) is not tax­ tinguish among the ubiquitous encinos onomy, here is some good advice. Always and robles of Latin America? These com­ try to use valid names. But to avoid pos­ mon names apply to more than a hundred sible confusion, remember to add the au­ specie• s. thor attribution to the botanical name in Furthermore, if we used only vernacu­ your research paper, and on the label of lar names, how many people would know every seedHng or packet of acorns! that the English oak of Britain, the quercia The authors appreciate the technical of Italy, and the stieleiche of Germany all review provided by Dr. Allen Coo1nbes are the same species the common Eu­ of the Sir Harold Hillier Arboretum, ropean pedunculate oak, Q. robur L.? Hampshire, United Kingdom. (Dr. And how can we account for the prob­ Coombes is the lead taxonomic reviewer lems caused by unscrupulous or careless .for International Oaks.) nurserymen who explore for plants, fail to identify them properly (or at all), and For further reading release them into the trade under invalid W.J.Bean, Trees and shrubs hardy in the British or invented names? Isles The only tJ.ue answer is to use Latin G.Krtissmann, Manual of Trees and Shrubs Index Kewensis (on CD-ROM, Oxford Univer­ names in accordance with the rules given sity Press) in the most cun·ent edition of the Interna­ Flora of North America, Vol. 3: Magnoliophyta tional Code of Botanical Nomenclature. (Magnoliidae and Hamanzelidae) The new World Checklist and Bibliog­ R. Govaerts and D. Frodin, World Checklist and raphy of Fagales will be very useful for Bibliography of Fagales international Oaks, Issue No. 8, Summer 1998 some of these problems. Keeping cun·ent International Code of Botanical Nontenclature, with esote1ic journals such as Taxon will adopted by the Fifteenth International Botani­ cal Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 1993

Page 12 No. 10 I Spring 2000