48 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol-i 



lisli version preceded by the preliminary report of the Royal Hort, Society 

 only appeared later in Jour. Roy. Ilort. Soc. xxxvii, 149-151 from which 



we quote. 



According to article i. horticultural nomenclature is based upon the 



rules of botanical nomenclature as adopted by the International Congress 



of Botany held at Menna in 1905, with some modilications, however, which 



comber n the nomenclature of varieties and hybrids. 



i\rt. 11. dealing with the naming of horti(uiltural varieties reads: ''It is 

 necessary in naming horticultural varieties of species and sim])le forms to 

 employ the complete names of the species with the name of the autlior. 

 The employment of Latin in naming horticultural varieties is authorized 

 only when the character of the plants is expressed, e. g., nanus, fastigiatus, 

 etc. The use of Latin proper names for such varieties is proscribed. 



"The names of horticultural varieties must always ]ye written in Roman 

 characters. [E. g. Ahjssum maritimum compadum. Pelargonium zonale 



' Mrs. Pollock.'] " 



Before accepting the ruling of this article we have to answer the question 

 what constitutes a horticuUural variety or form, as neither the rules of 

 botanical nor of horticultural nomenclature give a definition of this term. 



Can we really make a distinction between a horticultural and a botanical 

 form? Is there any inherent difference between a mutation which has 

 s])rung up in the field or forest and has by a lucky chance survived, and a 

 mutation which has sprung up in the seed-bed of the nursery and saved by 

 man's interference? A large number of so-called garden forms have origi- 

 nated spontaneously as is well known and afterwards transferred to the 

 garden and propagated. Is e.g. Ilex opaca f. xaiithocarpa Rehder, because 

 it was found wild and named before it was introduced into cultivation, a 

 botanical form, and Ilex Aquijolium f. chn/socarpa Zabel a horticultural 

 form, because it originated in cultivation and was named from a cultivated 

 plant? I think one can but answer no. 



It therefore appears that the difference is not in the plant, but in the 

 name or in the rules governing the name, whether one applies the name 

 from a botanical ])oint of view considering the form a group of similar indi- 

 viduals w^hose taxonoinic limits one can mo<lify without change of name, 

 wdiile a horticultural form applies to an individual or its equivalent. This 

 named individual is usually perpetuated by vegetative .propagation, or if 

 proi)agated by seeds only the individuals which rei)roduce the i)arcnt ex- 

 actly are considered as belonging to the named form in qu(^stion, while 

 every slight deviation is a " rogue " which is either disregarded or de- 

 stroyed, or if possessing special horticultural merits, given another name 

 and made the starting point of a new form. It is therefore only fitting that 

 such individuals should bear vernacular names, wliicli may be compared 

 to the names of human individuals, while on the other hand we are justified 

 in treating every form which bears a name indistinguishable from a so-called 

 botanical name, according to the rules of botanical nomenclature, that is as 

 a group which may include besides the tyi)ical individual other closely re- 



