Talk:International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

cultivars vs varieties.....
Since the article of List of rice varieties cann't tell which variety is natural and which one is cultivated, so the link will not be removed until the List of rice cultivars is generated.--222.67.212.58 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is considerably more complicated than that. However, I don't really see what connection these lists have to this topic, at all. - CubicFeet (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Code of Orchids

 * From this passage


 * The ICNCP operates within the framework of the which regulates formal names for plants in general. On the other hand, orchids have a Code of their own that operates within the limits set by the ICNCP.


 * it seems that the ICNCP conforms to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. And that the “Code of Orchids” conforms to the ICNCP.  If true then the “Code of Orchids” strikes me as closer than another hand to the ICNCP.  More like a finger on the same hand.


 * 1) Can you rephrase the passage?  Without the finger analogy of course.
 * 2) What is the right name for the “Code of Orchids”?  What is the reference for it?
 * 3) Is it only for orchids that there is a code that the ICNCP?
 * 4) Orchids are a family.  But could a genus have a further refined code?  Could an order have a further refined code?  What is the right name for a generic “group of botanical types” that might have its own code?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.99.109 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Botanical Code applies to "all organisms treated as plants": the Cultivated Plant Code applies to "all organisms treated as plants and whose origin or selection is primarily due to human activity". Orchids have always been a difficult case because of their complex breeding histories, the exactitude of the numerous orchid enthusiasts, and the fact that orchids seem to be in some way a special case. Nevertheless, the 2009 CPC includes the grex as a new classification category (a category that applies to orchids alone) and I think that this probably overcomes any long-standing differences between the CPC and the orchid community. As the 2009 CPC is only just published and the grex only just acknowledged it would seem that any "independent" orchid code is now redundant. However, orchidists may have a different view. In principle the CPC is the final authority. You might want to get a view on the latest CPC from the orchid community?  Granitethighs   20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation
I have removed the tag calling for improved citation and the tag in the first sentence calling for "clarification" of the word cultigen. There are four clarifications of the word cultigen: the hyperlink to "cultigen" itself, two explanations following the word, and a definitive reference. Why is further clarification needed? The use of the word is justified as extremely convenient shorthand. To require improved citation is fine - please insert citation tags where there are unsubstantiated statements. The article is, on the whole, well cited.  Granitethighs  08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * == Quotations ==

I have indented the quotation from Stearn* as it was not clear where it ended. The section at the end, quoting de Candolle, is further indented, and no longer in decorative quotes (as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style) but there are still problems with it:
 * "Seedlings, half-breeds (métis) of uncertain origin and sports should receive from horticulturists fancy names (noms de fantaisie) in common language, as distinct as possible from the Latin names of species or varieties. When they can be traced back to a botanical species, subspecies or variety, this is indicated by a succession of names (Pelargonium zonale, Mrs Pollack)."

Unfortunately, the example given in the quote does not follow current practice; the plant is now simply Pelargonium 'Mrs Pollock'.

But is this quotation cited correctly? Is there a comma between zonale and Mrs in the original? In the 1860s there would probably have been a full stop after Mrs. (thus) and the correct spelling of the cultivar name is 'Mrs Pollock', not "Pollack".

PS I'm assuming that Stearn's article was published in the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society; the original ref seemed to confuse publisher / publication names?

SiGarb | (Talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the original either, but this claims to be it. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Si - the precise text of this quote is written in French exactly as below - please correct the article accordingly:
 * Dans les plantes cultivées, les semis, les métis d’origin obscure et les sports, reçoivent des nomes de fanantaisie, en langue vulgaire, aussi différents que possible des noms latins d’espèces ou variétés. Quand on peut les rattache á une espèce, á une sous espèce ou une variété botanique, on indique par la succession des noms (Pelargonium zonale Mistress-Pollock).
 *  Granitethighs  04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Granite. Oh dear. Why are there always unopened cans of worms lurking in such matters? Where did you find the French original? There seem to be at least three errors in it ("nomes" instead of "noms", "fanantaisie" instead of "fantaisie" and "rattache" instead of "rattacher")! And then the English translator (or perhaps whoever created the text for the BSI website) has added the offending comma after Pelargonium zonale! And the original French author also changed the cultivar name!
 * SiGarb | (Talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it's arguable that the French author has simply expanded "Mrs" into "Mistress", although the hyphen is odd. But I don't think that we should be quoting so extensively from the original; a paraphrase and a short quotation are surely more in the spirit of Wikipedia?
 * By the way, I think that here the best translation of the French "succession" is actually "sequence" not the English "succession" which has a narrower meaning than the French word as far as I can tell (the English word always implies "in time"; the French does not according to the dictionary I looked at). The meaning is then quite different! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter & SiGarb, you are absolutely correct about the errors, all mine. Shows how easy it is to make transcription errors - I copied the French from the original publication by De Candolle, Article 40, published here. At the time of this publication there were no rules or conventions about the "correct" way to present names like these.  I agree that a paaphrase would be fine and I'm happy for you to adjust the article as you see fit - I dont trust myself after this deluge of errors. ... Now I've had second thoughts.  This statement, either in the original French (accurately transcribed) or translated into English (as well as possible) is desirable as it has special historical significance. From it  the ICNCP has subsequently evolved in all its 'glory'.  Granitethighs   22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so the precise French version is: "Dans les plantes cultivées, les semis, les métis d'origin obscure et les sports, reçoivent des noms de fantaisie, en langue vulgaire, aussi différents que possible des noms latins d'espèces ou de variétés. Quand on peut les rattacher à une espèce, à une sous espèce ou une variété botanique, on l'indique par la succession des noms (Pelargonium zonale Mistress-Pollock)." I think I've corrected all the transcription errors, and have included the italics in the original. The first is presumably because "sports" is a foreign (i.e. English) word; the second is significant.

My own preferred translation of this is: "Among cultivated plants, seedlings [semis], crosses [métis] of uncertain origin and sports, receive fancy names [noms de fantaisie] in common language, as distinct as possible from the Latin names of species or varieties. When they can be traced back to a botanical species, subspecies or variety, this is indicated by a sequence of names (Pelargonium zonale Mistress-Pollack)."

"Métis" is difficult. Article 12 says: "Fertilization of one species by another species, creates a hybrid [hybride], that of a variant [modification] or subdivision of [a] species by another variant [modification] of the same species creates a métis (mistus)." In other words, a métis is a cross between two subdivisions (subspecies, varieties, etc.) of the same species. This is consistent with the racial use of the term: the children of French colonialists and Native Americans were (and still are) called "métis". So "half-breeds" is literal, but wouldn't be used in English for plants and is now derogatory for people.

So what to do in the article? My preference is:
 * 1) Summarize the Stearn quote.
 * 2) As per Granitethighs' comment, include a translation of de Candolle's Article 40 with the original French in a footnote.

Comments? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, yes, I dislike "half-breed" but it is probably the clearest translation of métis; however, my two-volume Collins gives "crossbreed", with "hybrid" for plants, but as hybrid is more precisely defined in Article 12, perhaps "cross" is best? Perhaps the two quotation option is best, so readers can make their own interpretations if they disagree with ours? Mistress-Pollock is still a peculiarity, reversing the now normal order of italicising the latinate part or parts of the name and leaving the cultivar name in roman. SiGarb | (Talk) 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I like Peter's suggestions. Mistress-Pollock needs to have the spelling and layout that is in the quote. When we are dealing with the quotes themselves there is no need to worry about any nomencatural rules or conventions - because it is a quote.  Granitethighs  22:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, if used, the quote should be quoted exactly as is. Let's try it out and see how it looks. SiGarb | (Talk) 11:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, we forgot (or at least I did), in our discussion of the accuracy of the translation, that it is a quotation within a quotation, so we can only use the wording that Stearn used. So half-breeds stays, and Mrs Pollock, not Mistress-Pollock. I can't see anywhere to add in the original French without spoiling the flow. The link that Nadiatalent gives above, to the |Bromeliad Society site, is to a transcript of Stearn's address on the subject, which is similar to, but not identical with, the version we're supposed to be quoting here (although the translated quote within the quote has the same wording). I don't have the original RHS Journal (if that is indeed where it appears) to do a check.SiGarb | (Talk) 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but we have a choice: we can quote de Candolle directly, we don't have to do it via Stearn. We shouldn't use a quote that contains inaccuracies; we can't change it but we can use editorial judgement to avoid reproducing the error. What I favour is removing or reducing the Stearn quotation (it's quite long for Wikipedia) by paraphrasing it, and then including the de Candolle quotation (in the text in translation and in a footnote in the original language seems to be the correct WP style). I'm happy to attempt this, if other editors agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed ... lets do it.  Granitethighs  11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good; go for it! SiGarb | (Talk) 15:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, have done it. See what you think (and feel free to edit further!). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfect.  Granitethighs  21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the "official" English translation of de Candolle's wording (which I just found) is Weddell's translation page 29: "Art. 40. Seedlings, half-breeds of uncertain origin, and sports should receive from horticulturists fancy names in common language, as distinct as possible from the Latin names of species or varieties. When they can be traced back to a botanical species, subspecies, or variety, this is indicated by a succession of names (Pelargonium zonale, Mrs. Pollock)." There is also considerable discussion earlier in the document about terms métis, breed, half-breed, etc., (including "prole", which is largely forgotten) particularly this translator's footnote on pages 21–22: "1 Since the meeting of the Congress, the author of this pamphlet has, together with the translator, turned his attention to the choice of a significant English term for the French métis. The word blending does not perhaps indicate quite clearly enough the existence of a mixture, and does not allude to its nature. The term half-breed, used by agriculturists, appears to answer much better to the sense of métis; breed precisely implying a race, and half-breed the mixture of two races.	It may, however, likewise be suggested that the shortness of the French word métis, analogous to the Spanish mestizo, and evidently derived from the Latin mistus, or mixtus, will perhaps induce English botanists to adopt it, together with the word half-breed. The latter is undoubtedly more expressive, but métis has over it the advantage of being intelligible in several tongues. The term mule, as applied to the mixture of varieties or races, is in constant use amongst English florists; but is too obviously erroneous to be sanctioned by scientific writers. (Translator.)'"

ICNCP online
I just noticed that the citation for the ICNCP didn't give the url for the online version; just in case any editors weren't aware that it's online, I thought I'd leave a note here. See International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants for a revised citation which does give the url. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just an excerpt. They are careful to keep it behind a paywall, which is at odds with the ambition to encourage use of the code. It is a stupid policy and it is unfortunate that the ISHS don't see that. By the way: they are in the process for a new edition right now. Aakerro (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The message you replied to was twelve years old, but I checked in the bibliography and someone had in fact mistakenly used the URL for an excerpt instead of the full document. I've corrected the reference now, you can see the full document there (or here). Averixus (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Trade designations in Wikipedia
The ICNCP says that trade designations "must [my emphasis] always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets." It uses small capitals to do this, although this is not mandated. There was a very long discussion at Wikitalk:Plants here and here as to how to make the distinction in Wikipedia. The discussion didn't really reach a consensus, other than a strong feeling against either small capitals (as per the Code) or fixed-space font. So within Wikipedia we don't use either Rosa or Rosa Iceberg. The template tdes produces a different font-family, unlikely to be used by anyone for normal text, although this can't be guaranteed since users can change their default font. This gives Rosa. This style can't be said to have consensus, but seemed to be more acceptable than the other two.

In the absence of a consensus on presentation, it's important that the text makes it clear when a name is not a cultivar name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Higher and lower levels
The examples should include higher levels in the nomenclature. Also, the interpretation/status of "strain" should be stated. —DIV (120.17.115.15 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC))