The Code lays down two basic principles; though, as we shall see, these may be modified if undesirable name-changing can be avoided thereby.
(a) No name can be used if it does not conform to the various rules laid down in the Code (including proper publication of the name, with a description).
(b) If there are two or more names that conform with the Code, then the earliest name is the correct one; this is known technically as the principle of priority.
Now, obviously, as happens with botanical names, the strict application of priority might mean that a universally used name—say, Plum 'Victoria'—would have to be given up and replaced by a completely unknown one. This is unthinkable, and, as in the Botanical Code, there are clauses to prevent it happening. With cultivar-names, however, there is a particular complication, which does not apply to botanical names. The latter are all in Latin, whereas cultivar-names may be in many languages. This means that a cultivar, raised in one country under a name acceptable in that country, may be introduced into another country where the original name is quite unpronounceable or otherwise unsuitable. A new name is, of course, immediately invented by the introducer, and clearly, in many cases, it is useless to try to make the second country adopt the earlier, strictly correct, but unsuitable name. The Code, therefore, allows the retention of the second name as what it calls a "commercial synonym." Thus, Rose 'Permanent Wave' is a commercial synonym in the United States for the Rose raised in Holland as 'Mevrouw van Straaten van Nes.' In any formal list of Roses, both names should be given, together with any other commercial synonyms that may exist. The coining of commercial synonyms is not, of course, to be encouraged, and should only be done if the original name is clearly unsuitable for the new country. Frequently names are translated or transliterated when a cultivar is introduced into another country, and such a translation or transliteration is not regarded in the Code as a new name, but as the original name in another form; no difficulty, therefore, arises as to priority in these particular cases.
Perhaps the most important section of the whole Code deals with the Registration of cultivar-names. In certain groups (e.g. Daffodils) international registration schemes already exist, and it is urged that further schemes, covering all important groups of cultivated plants, should be established as soon as possible. The function of such authorities would consist, primarily, of (1) registering new names and ensuring that they are in accordance with the Code, and (2) preparing, and keeping up to date, lists of cultivars in their groups. In addition, the authorities would choose a particular publication as the "starting-point" of the nomenclature in the group (so as to avoid dipping too deeply into the past in search of ever earlier cultivar-names), and would act as arbiters when a decision has to be made between two or more widely used names for the same cultivar. There is no doubt in the minds of those responsible for the Code that the existence of internationally trusted and respected registration authorities would do more than anything else to stabilize and simplify the naming of cultivated plants. It will obviously take some time before authorities can be set up for all—or even the majority—of important groups, but the International Committee is doing its best to push ahead quickly with this very important side of their work.
At the end of the Code there are sections dealing with certain special categories such as re-selected and improved cultivars, con-varieties, clones, apomicts and line-hybrids, which are of interest mainly to specialists in breeding and taxonomic work on cultivated plants.
I hope I have said enough, in this short article, to convince readers of the JOURNAL that the Code is of some interest to them if they want to use the names of plants so that other gardeners, both here and abroad can understand what they mean. The next step is to read the Code itself—first the Summary and then the full text that follows it. No doubt many who do so will be put off at first by the somewhat legal language used. One can only repeat the time-honoured defence by lawyers when similarly attacked—that to avoid ambiguity experience has shown that a certain amount of jargon is necessary! We have tried hard, in the Code, to keep it to a minimum.
The International Committee is anxious to receive suggestions for
improving the Code, so that they can be discussed at the next
Horticultural Congress. All such suggestions should be sent to the
Secretary of the Committee (DR. H. R. FLETCHER), c/o The Royal
Horticultural Society, Vincent Square, London, S.W.1.
In the Historical Introduction to the Code (written by MR. W. T. STEARN, Secretary of the International Committee, during the production of the Code), Fellows of The Royal Horticultural Society will note, I trust with pride, the important part played by their Society, in cooperation with many other bodies and individuals in many parts of the world, in the preparation, drafting and publication of the Code. I hope that they will feel it their not unpleasant duty to make themselves and others familiar with the provisions of the Code, to follow its rules and recommendations when they use the names of cultivated plants, and to let the Secretary of the Committee know how they think it might be improved. Article I of the Code states that its aim is "to promote uniformity, accuracy and fixity … with the minimum disturbance of existing nomenclature"—an aim surely close to the heart of every Fellow of The Royal Horticultural Society.
I am grateful to MR. A. SIMMONDS, MR. W. T. STEARN AND MR. P. M. SYNGE for help in the preparation of this article.