It is only proper at this point to tell you how the U. S. A. was represented at the International Horticultural Congress in London. Practically every country except the United States has a national horticultural organization, comparable in some respects to the Royal Horticultural Society, with which you are surely familiar. This country had none. When the "call" went out for representatives and delegates to the International Horticultural Congress, that for this country was delivered to the agricultural attaché at our Embassy in London. It is reported that he referred it to his home office and attended some preliminary meetings in London. The matter was referred to the U. S. Department of Agriculture in Washington and there sat, apparently, for months. In the interim, private communications were flying across the Atlantic in both directions between interested horticulturists and finally the matter was referred by the Honorable Secretary of the Congress direct to American societies of horticulture to ensure that American views and interests would be adequately represented. It boiled down to the United States being represented by those persons who were going to be at the Congress anyway and by men who were not specialists in nomenclatural matters. Appraised of their lot, these persons made every effort to be briefed and informed on as many aspects of the provisions of the proposed Code as possible. As stated later by Dr. S. L. Emsweller (a member of the committee, representing U. S. D. A. and the American Society for Horticultural Science), this situation brought into sharp focus the need in this country for a single horticultural organization of organizations that could serve as authorized in matters at the international level. The American Horticultural Council, to which the Northern Nut Growers Association belongs may become that organization, but only when authorized by its membership.
Many readers may be familiar with earlier codes, as that adopted by the American Pomological Society (which dates from 1847), that by the American Society of Agronomists (formulated in 1917-18), and with a third code adopted at the sessions of the Botanical Congress meeting in Cambridge, England, in 1935. Knowing of the provisions of these codes, you may ask, "What has the new one got that is different?" There are many new features of which the more significant are given below.
Perhaps foremost is the recognition that, for the most part, the so-called varieties of garden plants are not uniform in their behavior. Some are nothing more than transplants of variations found in the wild, such as the Japanese Juglans Sieboldiana var. cordiformis, a population having its own geographic range and distinguished from the typical element of the species by several morphological characters. It is a botanical variety that is cultivated. It is not a product of domestication.
The code distinguishes from this botanical variety those so-called varieties that are the result of domestication, variants that have been produced in cultivation but are not known to occur and perpetuate themselves in the wild, such as Schwedler's maple known as Acer Platanoides var. Schwedleri. Plants of this group, that may be grown from seed and which do show a limited variability, are distinguished from botanical varieties by placing them in a new category called cultivar (a name coined long ago by L. H. Bailey and meaning, a variety from cultivation). The abbreviation for the category is cv. Furthermore, in an effort to differentiate cultivar names from botanical names, it is provided that they be treated as are vernacular or fancy (common) names. That is, that the name be placed in single quotes and not italicized e.g., Acer Platanoides cv. 'Schwedleri'.
A third category is that of clone. A clone is an individual propagated not from seeds but by asexual means, as by grafting, budding, cuttings, etc. Most so-called varieties of nuts are clones. A clone may be selected from a species population, from a botanical variety, from a cultivar, or from anyone of several types of hybrid complexes. It may appear as a mutant of another clone. The name for it may, where there is need for precision, be attached to the name of the species (or hybrid) from which it was selected, as Corylus Avellana cl. 'DuChilly' or reduced to Corylus cl. 'DuChilly.'
For the hybridizer naming and introducing new hybrids to cultivation, the Code is more helpful than any previous set of rules and the needs of hybridizers of various groups have been considered. Many examples illustrating application of each provision are given in the unabridged version.
The person naming plants will find much helpful guidance with regard to the selection of names which should be considered if international usage is to prevail. The Code is just that, a set of dicta provided for guidance by horticulturists throughout the world that there may prevail
a greater uniformity, accuracy, and fixity of names,
a lessening of procedures that would lead to confusion and error if
adequately supported or widely adopted, and
a provision for change and revision.
One section of the code ("C") dealing with Registration might well come within the framework of interest and activity of the Northern Nut Growers Association. This section, which suffers materially by condensation in the abbreviated text that follows, occupies nearly a page in the unabridged edition. It envisages the establishment of an international registering body, with headquarters for different groups located in different countries, e.g., that for tulips in the Netherlands, for rhododendrons in Britain, for roses in the United States, etc. The task of compiling, maintaining, and publishing such a registrar (and rejecting names not in conformance with the Code) will fall in many cases on the special plant societies concerned. When societies for a given group of plants exist in 2 or more countries, they will be expected to collaborate. Insofar as I know the Northern Nut Growers Association has not set up any mechanism for the registration of names given to cultivars, hybrids, and clones of nuts. To do so would be to perform a very real service for your membership, for the industry in this country, and would place the Association in a key spot when the proposal for an international registry is activated. The agitation for this phase of international application of the Code is considerable and is more evident in Europe than here. If the Association takes an active stand in the matter and develops a center of registry of nut names for this continent, it may very well display a quality of initiative and service that will make it pre-eminent on the international level and will cause others to look to it for guidance, information, and leadership.
A careful consideration of this Code is commended to all and those interested in the topic are urged to procure a copy of the booklet giving the unabridged edition and Stearn's excellent historical account of the subject.