Skip to main content
Log in

Botany and horticulture — the twain shall meet

  • Published:
Plant Systematics and Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The residual failures of harmony between botanical and cultivated plant systematists is related to a review of their methodologies. Because some cultivated plant groups overlap the distinction, it is argued that special classification systems are not appropriate generally to cultivated plants. A fundamental reason for the difficulty is suggested and it is shown that this still allows, as a compromise solution, the adoption of the author's previously published flexible unified hierarchy of categories, which is figured and its relevance to the whole situation explained. Some misunderstandings between botanists and horticulturists are reviewed and explanations consistent with the previous discussion offered. These concern typification, whether cultivars require types or have synonyms and what should be done about the confusion of “typical”. The relationship between the Codes is clarified by an example and the matter of the “gardener's species” is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brickell, C. D., 1970:Euryops acraeus orEuryops evansii. — J. Roy. Hort. Soc.95: 94–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1973: Problems of horticultural nomenclature. — InGreen, P. S., (Ed.): Plants: wild and cultivated, pp. 102–113. — Hampton: E. W. Classey.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, (Ed.), 1980: International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants—1980. — Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtt, B. L., 1970: Infraspecific categories in flowering plants. — Biol. J. Linn. Soc.2, 233–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, S. T., 1962: The microbial species—a macromyth?—InAinsworth, G. C., Sneath, P. H. A., (Eds.): Microbial classification, pp. 433–455. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. H., Heywood, V. H., 1963: Principles of angiosperm taxonomy. — Edinburgh, London: Oliver & Boyd, repr. 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour, J. S. L., 1940: Taxonomy and philosophy. — InHuxley, J., (Ed.): The new systematics, pp. 461–474. — Oxford: O.U.P. — Repr. 1971: London: The Systematics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1973: And never the twain shall meet: horticulture and botany—allies not enemies. — InGreen, P. S., (Ed.): Plants: wild and cultivated, pp. 13–17. — Hampton: E. W. Classey.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1939: Demes: a suggested new terminology. — Nature144: 333–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, V. H., 1967: Variation in species concepts. — Regnum Veg.27: 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, J., 1969: Notes on cultivatedLiliaceae, 5.Hosta seboldii andHosta sieboldiana. — Baileya15: 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., 1986a: The classification of cultivars in relation to wild plants. — InStyles, B., (Ed.): Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. — Systematics Assoc. Spec. Vol.29: 115–137. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • - 1986b: The classification of conifer cultivars. — Acta Horticulturae182 (in press).

  • Linnaeus, C., 1753: Species plantarum. — Stockholm.

  • Mettler, L. F., Gregg, T. G., 1969: Population genetics and evolution. — London: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, P. F., 1978: The classification of crop plants. — InStreet, H. E., (Ed.): Essays on plant taxonomy. — London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickersgill, B., 1986: Evolution of hierarchical variation patterns under domestication and their taxonomic treatment. — InStyles, B., (Ed.): Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. — Systematics Assoc. Spec. Vol.29: 191–209. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, C. A., 1986: The present and future infraspecific classification of wild plants. — InStyles, B., (Ed.): Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. — Systematics Assoc. Spec. Vol.29: 9–20. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stearn, W. T., 1966:Viburnum farreri, a new name forV. fragrans Bunge. — Taxon15: 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1973: The principles of botanical nomenclature, their basis and history. — InGreen, P. S., (Ed.): Plants wild and cultivated, pp. 86–111. — Hampton: E. W. Classey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, E. G., (Ed.) 1983: International code of botanical nomenclature. — Utrecht, Antwerp: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, H. J., 1979: Manual of dwarf conifers. — New York: Theophrastus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Dedicated to the memory of JohnS. L. Gilmour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewis, J. Botany and horticulture — the twain shall meet. Pl Syst Evol 167, 7–22 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936543

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936543

Key words

Navigation