THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS - PRESENT AND FUTURE AIMS AND REQUIREMENTS

Article C.1 of the 1953 edition of the International Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants meticulously (although no doubt painfully) prepared in scholarly fashion by our distinguished chairman and keynote speaker, Professor William Stearn, tells us that "the aim of this Code is to promote uniformity, accuracy and fixity in the use of names with the minimum disturbance of existing nomenclature".

During the intervening 32 years those three major aims have not changed although subsequent editions of the "Cultivated Code" do now refer specifically to agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural cultivars as the entities concerned. The phrase "minimum disturbance of existing nomenclature" disappeared when the second edition of the code was published in 1958 but I believe this might usefully be reinstated as a reminder of the need for caution, particularly when looking at well-established names for entities now considered to be cultivars published prior to January 1st 1959 when the use of Latinised epithets for cultivated varieties was banned.

All of us at this symposium realise the vital need to achieve these aims, difficult though this may be when one considers how long man has applied names, frequently imprecisely, to cultivated plants.

It is obvious that we can only achieve reasonable uniformity, accuracy and fixity of names if we can persuade those who cultivate plants, whether amateurs or professionals, in the disciplines of agriculture, horticulture, silviculture and botany to accept fully and implement ICNCP on an international basis. ICNCP and its 57 articles (which the frivolous may consider as disparate as the similar number of products from Mr. Heinz!) are not legally binding and it is much to be regretted that there are some within our disciplines who ignore the code or misuse its provisions although well aware of its aims. The Botanical Code similarly lacks legal status but a majority of taxonomists abide by its rules recognizing the vital importance to the profession of providing a uniform approach to nomenclature, coloured slightly perhaps by the taxonomic stigma attached to those who dare to ignore its dictates. Some of us may chaff at the inflexibility of its provisions and apparent lack of clarity when we attempt to interpret certain of the rules but it is now internationally accepted and, equally important, implemented. Whilst enormous strides have been made in rationalising the naming of cultivated plants since the publication of the Cultivated Code, its acceptance internationally is only partial. Encouragingly its use is steadily increasing but there are still major sections of the three disciplines of agriculture, horticulture and silviculture where it is not known or, if it is known, it is not used. I find it astonishing that many horticultural researchers whose work is, in other respects, scientifically and technically accurate do not attempt to apply the provisions of the Cultivated Code when referring to the names