just guessing .. because i know time is of the essence in this post.. lol ...

usually.. nomenclature is through an international body ... and should involve the latin surnames ... as well as a cultivar name ... involving the founders native language ...

i believe they have stopped using differing cultivar names for different countries.. as it defeats the purpose of having one name for any given plant ... in other words.. there should NOT be an English version of a german named plant e.g.

patent is securing of a niche in the market of a 'unique' plant ... its about the plant.. NOT the name ... per se ... its about restricting others from selling your unique creation ...

you seem to be mixing apples and oranges ....

i am sure others will come along and argue about it all.. like they did in the other post.. lol

i know its really simplified.. but for most of us.. that is good enough ...

ken

As the grower/breeder you're in charge of the naming. Generic names/Common Names are what they are.

Patents are another ballgame. They allow you to receive dividends on all propagations of your selection. I dislike patents, but they are what they are. For instance, you might name your Maple 'St. Louis' but then some A-hole comes along and decides he'll re-name your creation with a catchier name, plus patenting it. Completely legal.

Registering a name however allows people to know that you have brought something with defining characteristics that make it stand out differently from other selections. This can be done at the website I'll link you to below.

So, Patents and Registration are completely different. In the same respect with the hypothetical name of 'St. Louis' and the jerk who stole your plant material and re-named it, "I" or anyone else could still propagate your selection under the orginial name you gave to it without being, "taxed."

Nyssa sylvatica is also commonly called/generically-called "Alligator Bark." These are all simply common names that of course, have (nothing) to do with the Genus/species which is what is the most important naming of cultivated, plants. As you know you go into a nursery with the Genus/species you'll find what you're looking for and without question. You ask for a "Magnoilia Tulip" and you might walk out with a true Magnolia and not a Poplar. That's the importance of: Genus/species. Common names don't mean anything in other words.

Dax

Here is a link that might be useful: International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

Dax pretty much nailed it :-)

Obviously, the genus and species are predetermined, unless as a breeder you have developed a new hybrid. And the international body (referred to above) oversees the appropriateness of categorizing those - from time to time they do change but only with the recommendation of taxonomers and approval of the governing body.

As a grower/breeder/hybridizer, the cultivar name is up to you. There are some guidelines for cultvar names - latinized forms are no longer acceptable - but other than that, you can call your new plant anything you want and register it with the appropriate body.

Patenting and trademarking are different processes from the naming of plants. Patenting is only protecting your specific offering from being propagated and sold without your permission or licensing. Trademarking a plant name is a relatively new practice and opens up various cans of worms (see the link below). Often with new introductions (and many plants that tend to be patented), the cultivar name is an odd, nearly unpronounceable jumble of letters that identifies the breeder AND the plant. These are often given a trademarked name for marketing purposes -- as an example, Endless Summer® is the registered trademarked named for Hydrangea macrophylla 'Bailmer', developed and introduced by Bailey Nursery. Trademarked names are not included within the single quotes as cultivar names are.

And common names are just that - whatever that plant is popularly/commonly referred to in that specific area. There are no rules or governing bodies that regulate common names, despite what some folks would like to think. They vary from country to country and from region to region within countries and there are very often multiple common names that refer to the exact same plant or a single common name that is applied to multiple plants. As a result, they are neither correct or incorrect and have no particular validity other than what folks are comfortable using. They are plant nicknames - nothing more, nothing less :-)

Here is a link that might be useful: trademarks

Bailey refers to Endless Summer as a "brand" and as a "collection". So far there are three different Endless Summer hydrangea cultivars. 'Bailmer' - the first cultivar in the series and repeatedly referred to in error by others as "Endless Summer" - is actually marketed by Bailey using the selling name The Original Hydrangea.

---

Thinking up a cultivar epithet requires a bit of care. An ideal epithet is both easy to spell and pronounce in the various countries through which the cultivar might be distributed. The rules for forming an epithet allow you to use or make up any word or words you want but the epithet will not be allowed as a cultivar epithet if it is confusing or likely to confuse or if it is contrary to the few provisions listed below. The Code governs the reasons why a proposed epithet might not be allowed: epithets not formed in accordance with the Code are to be "rejected".

1. The following are some of the Rules to follow when formulating a new name:
(a) Make sure your proposed name is unique and that the epithet is in a modern language other than Latin. (ICNCP Art. 19.13-19.14)

(b) Make sure that your name cannot be confused either in spelling or pronunciation with an existing one. (ICNCP Art. 19.15)

(c) Make sure that your name could not be interpreted as being likely to exaggerate the merits of the cultivar. (Art. 19.26)

(d) Make sure that the epithet of your name has no more than 10 syllables and no more than 30 characters, excluding spaces and the single quotation marks. (ICNCP Art. 19.15)

(e) Make sure your epithet does not consist of a single letter or solely of numerals (ICNCP Art. 19.16)

(f) Do not use any of the following banned words (or their equivalents in any language) in your epithet: "cultivar", "grex", "group", "hybrid", "maintenance", "mixture", "selection", "series", "sport", "strain", "variety" (or the plural form of these words in any language) or the words "improved" or "transformed". (ICNCP Art. 19.19-19.20)

(g) Do not use any punctuation marks except for the apostrophe, the comma, a single exclamation mark, the hyphen and the full-stop (period). Do not use fractions or symbols unless they are specifically permitted. (ICNCP Art. 19.21-19.22)

(h) Make sure that your epithet is not, or does not contain, the Latin or common name of its genus or the common name of any species in that genus if use of such might lead to confusion. (ICNCP Art. 19.23-19.24)

(i) Make sure that publication of the cultivarÂs name is not against the wishes of its raiser or breeder. (ICNCP Art. 28.4)

Here is a link that might be useful: How to name a new cultivar

Dax,

Who's the jerk you're talking about? :)

So... I discover a cool shantung maple seedling with kickass leaf shape, etc and figured it'd be cool to share cuttings/grafted ones with others only to find out that this jerk decided to make a profit of my discovery by patenting it? Just like that?

'Bailmer' - the first cultivar in the series and repeatedly referred to in error by others as "Endless Summer" - is actually marketed by Bailey using the selling name The Original Hydrangea.

'Bailmer' was assigned the trademarked name Endless Summer® in 2003, long before there were any other reblooming hydrangeas developed in that series. They continue to market that plant as Endless Summer®-The Original. And their marketing efforts have so successful that if you say Endless Summer hydrangea, everyone knows it refers to a very hardy, reblooming, typically blue mophead, not the entire series.

wow, some good links. A bit to digest.

Does the ISHS have a link to a "Complete Cultivar Listing"? Especially one with its heritage would be neat. The breeder would get credit and advertising of their cultivar. Also the ISHS would get more hits on their website if I knew I could go there and look up xxxx different Nyssa Sylvaticas or whatever.

No way Lou, no way! :>)

Dax

Bailey (and others) shows a tendency to put "brand" or "collection" names in front of selling names used to market specific cultivars. There is often no particular genetic connection between different introductions in these promotional groupings. In this case the three plants in the set are all bigleaf hydrangeas. Others may consist of different kinds of plants not even in the same genera.

It began with a single plant, Endless Summer ® The Original Hydrangea, sparking a revolution. The Endless Summer Blushing Bride Hydrangea followed and has swept gardeners completely off their feet. Now, the latest addition, Twist-n-ShoutÂ, is shaking things up in gardens across North America

Here is a link that might be useful: The First hydrangeas that bloom all season long : Endless Summer® Collection

"And common names are just that - whatever that plant is popularly/commonly referred to in that specific area. There are no rules or governing bodies that regulate common names, despite what some folks would like to think. They vary from country to country and from region to region within countries and there are very often multiple common names that refer to the exact same plant or a single common name that is applied to multiple plants. As a result, they are neither correct or incorrect and have no particular validity other than what folks are comfortable using. They are plant nicknames - nothing more, nothing less :-)"

Maybe that is the case where you are in the USA, but it doesn't apply to most of the rest of the world. You need to get out of your Americo-centrism and think globally. But I'm far from convinced by even the USA being so; USDA Plants Profile shows every sign of being a governing body regulating common names, and certainly accepts only a single English name per species. If you stop for a moment and think about it, you'll see that some form of standardisation is essential for communication, to be successful particularly in our modern globalised state. And that applies just as importantly to vernacular language names as to scientific names, given the way a large proportion of most populations have a mental block against scientific names.

In most countries there is a definite policy to treat their respective languages' names with the same level of educational and scientific rigour that scientific names are treated; if a name used in the past is misleading or in any other way unsuitable, change it to something more suitable.

Resin

Eucalyptus regnans is called "swamp gum" in Tasmania but "mountain ash" in Victoria.
E. viminalis is commonly called both "manna gum" and "ribbon gum"
Do you really want the English to call lime trees lindens?
If you want to be scientifically accurate, use scientific names.

When I lived in Europe some two decades ago now, it was much easier to bridge the language gap when admiring someone's garden by using the Latin name; the genus was usu good enough to use when complimenting someone on their garden, esp if it was a language I wasn't very good at speaking (the majority of them).

Dan

"Resin, party of one, your table is ready".

The standardization already exists, it's called botanical nomenclature. And the world is full of people who call specific plants by common names but have no awareness of "official" common name lists, let alone any interest in following them.

As I have posted before. The case of a minority trying to impose something on a much larger group is this recurring "correct" common plant names fantasy. The American public has no idea that there is somebody in England shouting "pink siris!" "pink siris!" or "ash-leaf maple!" "ash-leaf maple"! - let alone is the use of common plant names customary in the US an attempt to force them onto the British.

In most countries there is a definite policy to treat their respective languages' names with the same level of educational and scientific rigour that scientific names are treated; if a name used in the past is misleading or in any other way unsuitable, change it to something more suitable.

Please explain to us all what the "educational and scientific rigour" would be with response to names like 'doghobble' (Leucothoe), 'pigsqueak' (Bergenia), 'kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate' (Persicaria orientale) or 'love-lies-bleeding' (Amaranthus caudatus). You are attempting to apply rules and regulations where none exist. Nor should they.

If your concern is the accuracy of communication, standards for that already exist - as various responders have clearly pointed out - binomial botanical nomenclature. The standards are uniform and globally relevant and closely monitored and regulated. Whether one chooses to use them or not is up to them and how well they wish to make themselves understood to the rest of the botanical world. But to attempt to limit or regulate what is based on tradition, folklore and local legends or myth is preposterous.

You are tilting at windmills.

I wish Americans would call Archontophoenix cunninghamiana "bangalow palm" instead of "king palm", but it's not going to happen.

True, no matter how hard big government or quasi-government might try to regulate what we call trees its a battle they're unlikely to win.

Especially since Archie Bunker and Al Bundy are American Heroes.

Meaning, many Americans prefer to sound cool instead of educated.

While I try to talk to my target audience as much as possible using locally understood verbiage I also sneak in big words and technical details about subjects I'm familiar with. When my friends talk about musical theory and the like which I DO NOT understand, I ask questions and try to become intelligent.

One common name is not better than another. Somebody over here using a common name that is different from one Resin or any other individual here or elsewhere thinks is more apt does not make them a typical American rube or buffoon.

Botanists do not even achieve universality on botanical names. Various authors continue to publish new combinations. Other scientists working in the relevant area of study may or may not then generally accept any particular names proposed. Opinions may remain divided for indefinite periods, with different concurrent authors using different names for the same plants.

"One common name is not better than another"

I don't see you hesitating to correct people when they write 'hawthorne'. So clearly, you don't believe in your own statement.

Resin

That is a spelling problem, not a completely different name being used.

Obviously.

"That is a spelling problem, not a completely different name being used"

That doesn't make it any different. Under your peculiar rules (or absence of any rules at all) for English names, it is just as legitimate as any other name.

"Please explain to us all what the "educational and scientific rigour" would be with response to names like 'doghobble' (Leucothoe), 'pigsqueak' (Bergenia), 'kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate' (Persicaria orientale) or 'love-lies-bleeding' (Amaranthus caudatus)."

Nothing wrong with those. They're distinct, so don't cause confusion. Educational and scientific rigour means not using the name of one plant for an unrelated plant, such as calling a maple an elder (Sambucus negundo), and so on. This should be the first principle of naming things.

And the other important point is to show respect for native usage, as Philinsydney1 also requested. It becomes highly insulting when American-based organisations which purport to be international standard authorities (e.g. ITIS) only accept American renamings of plants as legitimate and refuse to admit native names. Typical example for Philinsydney1 - take Tuckeroo which ITIS reject as inadmissible for Cupaniopsis anacardioides; they clearly consider that Australian, British, and any other people who are not American are ignorant backward savages who can't be allowed to name their own native plants. Only Americans can be permitted to name them. I see this sort of distasteful imperialism being promoted (usually heavily dominant) all over the internet.

Resin

RE: THIS ENTIRE THREAD

Maybe Obama will rescue our economic and social quarrels for 'everything' LOL...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A...

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because
when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will
try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

===========================================================

(I'll write to him tomorrow, cough). Is it just me, or does this sound very familiar to the tune of this entire thread?

Dax

I don't see that the ITIS makes any claim to being an "international standard authority" beyond the bounds of North America. It was originally comprised entirely of US based agencies to coordinate taxonomy and compile data for uniformity with regards to North American species and to other species of significance in this area and since has expanded to include partnerships with agencies from Canada and Mexico. Beyond this, it makes no claim to any sort of global application.

And its primary mission is taxonomic and data gathering -- certainly not to regulate common names. And since it is above all a North American organization, whatever common names it may assign as being the 'accepted' version would logically be North American in origin.

btw, the "first principal" of common names is the history of the common folk who termed them, whether in this country or any other. There is no scientific basis behind them so why the persistance on applying any kind of scientific standardization on something which has no basis in science? Who cares if a particular species of maple is commonly called a box elder? Or a juniper a red cedar? The people using those terms know what it is they are taking about and if the "science" was of any significance to them, they'd be using the correct botanical terminology.

Please, stop with the low-wattage Obama's socialism cr*p. This is a forum to exchange ideas, not local right-wing talking points. The point is more effectively given without narrow tribalism, and surely the Brits and those from Oz don't understand the jargon and won't get it...kinda like a common name...

TIA.

-----------

As an undergrad hort student, the profs & assistants always insisted we use the Latin name, and then after that we could use a "common" name. Our quizzes on plant ID were graded most on Latin name and only a few points for "common" name - that is - if we forgot the Latin most of our points were forgone.

Common names are fine in familiar circumstances, but if I'm going to Oz I'm not going to study the common names and fill my head with stuff I won't use again.

Use common names when appropriate, but when there is a chance for confusion, the Latin is the standard. Not hard at all. If you are speaking with a layperson or newbie, take what you can get and hope they know what they are talking about.

Oh, and what GG said.

Dan

I second what Dan said in a couple ways.

1, when there is any confusion (or when I want to sound intelligent) use Latin names.

2. I belong to a great Tea Party / Libertarian message board http://www.usmessageboard.com. Come on over and join. Its fun listening to folks argue the finer points of how forcing folks to pay for insurance is worse than the socialist like free-loader encouraging system we've had for 80 years.

Sometimes it is possible to work a bit of culture into scientific names eg Eucalyptus appererinja which is the name of the Central Australian ghost gum in the Aranda language, (I don't swear to have the correct language group but it is quite poetic imo)

Yeah, it was fresh on my mind, I apologize to everyone.
Thanks for not ousting me!!!

Dax