Botanical nomenclature
• Nomenclature deals with the
application of a correct name
to a plant or a taxonomic
group.
• In practice, nomenclature is
often combined with
identification, since while
identifying an unknown plant
specimen, the author
chooses and applies the
correct name.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
• The favourite temperate
plant is correctly identified
whether you call it ‘Seb‘
(vernacular Hindi name),
Apple, Pyrus malus or Malus
malus, but only by using the
correct scientific name
Malus domestica does one
combine identification with
nomenclature.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
• The current activity of botanical
nomenclature is governed by
the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN)
published by the International
Association of Plant Taxonomy
(IAPT).
• The Code is revised after
changes at each International
Botanical Congress.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
• The naming of the animals is governed by
the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN) and that of bacteria
by the International Code for the
Nomenclature of Bacteria (ICNB; now
known as Bacteriological Code-BC).
• Virus nomenclature is governed by
International Code of Virus Classification
and Nomenclature (ICVCN).
• Naming of cultivated plants is governed
by the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
(ICNCP), which is largely based on ICBN
with a few additional provisions.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
• Whereas within the provisions of a
particular code no two taxa can
bear the same correct scientific
name, same names are allowed
across the codes.
• The generic name Cecropia applies
to showy moths as also to tropical
trees.
• Genus Pieris, similarly, refers to
some butterflies and shrubs.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
• During the last decade, there have
been attempts at developing
unified code for all living organisms,
for convenient handling of
combined database for all
organisms.
• Draft BioCode and PhyloCode, have
been concerted efforts in this
direction, but it will take a long
time before acceptability of these
endeavours can be determined.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC NAMES
• Scientific names formulated in Latin are preferred over vernacular
or common names since the latter pose a number of problems:
• Vernacular names are not available for all the species known to
man.
• Vernacular names are restricted in their usage and are applicable in
a single or a few languages only. They are not universal in their
application.
• Common names usually do not provide information indicating
family or generic relationship.
• Roses belong to the genus Rosa; woodrose is a member of the
genus Ipomoea and primrose belongsto the genus Primula.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC NAMES
• The three genera, in turn, belong to three different families—
Rosaceae, Convolvulaceae and Primulaceae, respectively.
• Oak is similarly common name for the species of genus Quercus,
but Tanbark oak is Lithocarpus, poison oak a Rhus, silver oak a
Grevillea and Jerusalem oak a Chenopodium.
• Frequently, especially in widely distributed plants, many common
names may exist for the same species in the same language in the
same or different localities.
• Cornflower, bluebottle, bachelor‘s button and ragged robin all refer
to the same species Centaurea cyanus.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC NAMES
• Often, two or more unrelated species are known by the same
common name.
• Bachelor‘s button, may thus be Tanacetum vulgare, Knautia
arvensis or Centaurea cyanus.
• Cockscomb, is similarly, a common name for Celosia cristata but is
also applied to a seaweed Ploca-mium coccinium or to Rhinanthus
minor.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
Why Latin?
• Scientific names are treated as Latin regardless of their origin.
• It is also mandatory to have a Latin diagnosis for any new taxon
published 1 January 1935 onwards.
• The custom of Latinized names and texts originates from medieval
scholarship and custom continued in most botanical publications
until the middle of nineteenth century.
• Descriptions of plants are not written in classical Latin of Cicero or
of Horace, but in the ‘lingua franca’ spoken and written by scholars
during middle ages, based on popular Latin spoken by ordinary
people in the classical times.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
Why Latin?
• The selection has several advantages over modern languages:
• i) Latin is a dead language and as such meanings and
interpretation are not subject to changes unlike, English and
other languages;
• ii) Latin is specific and exact in meaning;
• iii) grammatical sense of the word is commonly obvious (white
translated as album-neuter, alba-feminineor albus- masculine);
and
• iv) Latin language employs the Roman alphabet, which fits well
in the text of most languages.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANICAL CODE
• For several centuries, the names of plants appeared as
polynomials—long descriptive phrases, often difficult to remember.
• A species of willow, for example, was named Salix pumila
angustifolia altera by Clusius in his herbal (1583).
• Casper Bauhin (1623) introduced the concept of Binomial
nomenclature under which the name of a species consists of two
parts, the first the name of the genus to which it belongs and the
second the specific epithet.
• Onion is thus appropriately named Allium cepa, Allium being the
generic name and cepa the specific epithet.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANICAL CODE
• Bauhin, however, did not use binomial nomenclature for all the
species and it was left to Carolus Linnaeus to firmly establish this
system of naming in his Species plantarum (1753).
• The early rules of nomenclature were set forth by Linnaeus in his
Critica botanica (1737) and further amplified in Philosophica
botanica (1751).
• A. P. de Candolle, in his Theorie elementaire de la botanique (1813),
gave explicit instructions on nomenclatural procedures, many taken
from Linnaeus.
• Steudel, in Nomenclator botanicus (1821), provided Latin names for
all flowering plants known to the author together with their
synonyms.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANICAL CODE
• The first organized effort towards the development of uniform
botanical nomenclature was made by Alphonse de Candolle, who
circulated a copy of his manuscript Lois de la nomenclature
botanique.
• After deliberations of the First International Botanical Congress at
Paris (1867), the Paris Code, also known as ‘de Candolle rules‘ was
adopted.
• Not satisfied with the Paris Code, the American botanists adopted
a separate Rochester Code (1892), which introduced the concept of
types, strict application of rules of priority even if the name was a
tautonym (specific epithet repeating the generic name, e.g. Malus
malus).
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANICAL CODE
• The Paris Code was replaced by the Vienna Code (1905), which
established Species plantarum (1753) of Linnaeus as the starting
point; tautonym was not accepted, and Latin diagnosis was made
essential for new species.
• In addition, a list of conserved generic names (Nomina generic
conservanda) was approved.
• Not satisfied with the Vienna Code also, adherents of the Rochester
Code adopted the American Code (1907), which did not accept the
list of conserved names and the requirement for Latin diagnosis.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANICAL CODE
• It was not until the 5th International Botanical Congress (IBC) at Cambridge (1930)
that the differences were finally resolved and a truly International Code evolved,
accepting the concept of type method, rejecting the tautonyms, making Latin
diagnosis mandatory for new groups and approving conserved generic names.
• The Code has since been constantly amended at each International Botanical
Congress.
• The 15th IBC was held at Tokyo in 1993, 16th at St Louis in 1999 (published by
Greuter et al., 2000).
• The Code discussed in the following pages is based on the 17th International
Botanical Congress held at Vienna in 2005 (Published by McNeill et al., 2006- Code
is generally published one year after the Congress).
• The 18th International Botanical Congress would be held in Melbourne, Australia in
2011.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
Principles of ICBN
• ICBN due to specific reasons and in order to separate plant kingdom
from other organisms, is redesignated as ICN. The International
Botanical Congress held in Melbourne in July 2011 brought this change.
The ICN stands for International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi
and Plants.
• The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is based on the
following set of six principles, which are the philosophical basis of the
Code and provide guidelines for the taxonomists who propose
amendments or deliberate on the suggestions for modification of the
Code:
• 1) Botanical Nomenclature is independent of Zoological Nomenclature.
The Code applies equally to the names of taxonomic groups treated as
plants whether or not these groups were originally so treated.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
Principles of ICBN
• 2) The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by
means of nomenclatural types.
• 3) Nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of
publication.
• 4) Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position
and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in
accordance with the rules.
• 5) Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin,
regardless of derivation.
• 6) The rules of nomenclature are retroactive, unless expressly
limited.
Source: Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice
References
• Singh, G. (2012). Plant Systematics: Theory and Practice, 3rd
edition. Oxford and IBH Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Chapter 1 for
unit 1, chapter 2 for unit 5, chapter 3 for unit 4, chapter 5 for
unit 2, chapter 7 for unit 3, chapter 8 & 9 for unit 7 and 8,
chapter 10 for unit 6.
• 2. Simpson, M.G. (2010). Plant Systematics. Elsevier Academic
Press, San Diego, CA, U.S.A. chapter 1 for unit 1, chapter 2, 6
&7 for unit 8, chapter 14 for unit 3, chapter 15-18 for unit 2.
