adaptable in landscape uses; it can be used 
successfully as a specimen plant, in mass 
plantings, in containers, and as espalier, 
screens, barriers, and hedges. Pyracantha is a 
major container-grown nursery crop through- 
out the world. In the United States, it is one of 
the most frequently planted berried shrubs. 
Pyracantha coccinea was recorded in cultiva- 
tion in Holland in 1594 and in England in 1629 
and was the only species grown there before 
the introduction of P. crenulata in 1830 from 
the Himalayas. Chinese plant explorations 
resulted in the introduction of P. angustifolia in 
1895, P. fortuneana in 1906, P. atalantioides in 
1907, P. rogersiana in 1911, and P. koidzumii 
soon thereafter. Three additional species—P. 
inermis, P. densiflora, and P. mekongensis—are 
not known in cultivation and are dubious 
species with only minor morphological diver- 
gence. Pyracantha was introduced into the 
United States in the early nineteenth century. 
It was listed in the William Prince Catalog, 
Flushing, New York, in 1824, and was adver- 
tised for sale in the Daily National Intelligencer 
in 1825 (Saul 1906). 
The cultivated Pyracantha species are confused 
by hybridization. As with many members of the 
Rosaceae, there are no barriers to hybridization 
and intermediate seedlings occur spontane- 
ously. Although ‘Lalandei’ was recognized as a 
clone as early as 1874, many nurseries contin- 
ued to propagate it by seed. These seedlings did 
not perpetuate the parent plant but became the 
progenitors of additional variations that were 
still identified as ‘Lalandei’. Among the culti- 
vars grown today as ‘Lalandei’ there are minor 
variants; some of the superior ones are desig- 
nated as cultivars. 
Very few of the cultivars included in this check- 
list resulted from controlled hybridization. The 
majority of new Pyracantha cultivars are 
chance seedlings selected because of growth 
habit, fruiting characteristics, hardiness, or 
disease resistance. The origin of many cultivars 
is further obscured by the reintroduction of an 
established cultivar under a new name because 
of lost identification or to promote sales. 
About the Checklist 
Content 
This book, compiled in accordance with the 
International Code of Nomenclature for Culti- 
vated Plants—1980 (Brickell et al. 1980), isa 
specialized list of cultivar names for the gar- 
dener, horticulturist, nursery worker, and 
botanist. Publication of cultivar names in this 
checklist fulfills the basic prerequisite for 
determining the acceptability of cultivar names 
for international Pyracantha registration. 
The checklist was compiled from materials 
gleaned from a thorough search of commercial, 
horticultural, and botanical literature. In 
addition to the primary literature, living mate- 
rial and herbarium specimens were studied. 
The three most significant categories of materi- 
als were (1) the collection of more than 140,000 
nursery and seed trade catalogs at the National 
Agricultural Library, Beltsville, Maryland; (2) 
the botanical and horticultural literature; and 
(3) the Pyracantha evaluation planting at the 
U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC. 
This checklist contributes to the nomenclatural 
stability of cultivar names, which are often 
known as cultivated or horticultural varieties or 
forms. Common names of cultivars were ex- 
cluded to avoid confusion. According to the 
International Code of Nomenclature for Culti- 
vated Plants—1980, a particular name is 
correct for only one cultivar; other names and 
designations must be treated as synonyms 
(sometimes called commercial synonyms). 
Since the same clone may have been known by 
several names at different times or in different 
regions, original and supplemental references 
frequently present repetitious descriptions. 
A published description has been required for 
validation (legitimization) of each cultivar name 
beginning January 1, 1959; descriptions were 
not necessary to validate cultivar names pub- 
lished before that date. Very few descriptions of 
Pyracantha cultivars are sufficiently clear to 
distinguish the hundreds of clones, and it is 
doubtful whether morphological descriptions or 
