Dylan Hannon
Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:30:36 PDT

Thank you for that concise clarification. On a related note, I have
long wondered if there is any provision (from botanical or
horticultural codes) for validly published names that are synonymized
in the scientific literature yet represent 'taxa' that retain
recognizable characteristics useful in horticulture. Some nurserymen
will use these names parentheically, after the accepted "mother name",
but is there a better way?

The basis for such distinctiveness (in the eyes of some) can be
natural- clones that stand out as different, or sampling from slightly
distinct wild populations- or from goings on in the garden. Whatever
the case they were conceived under nomenclatural rules and have proper
published descriptions, type(s), etc. These taxa, if they are that,
end up in a sort of no-man's land but of course they may be
resurrected later in the scientific literature after further study.


More information about the pbs mailing list