Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

Theoretical and practical problems in the classification and nomenclature of cultivated plants
Fig. 3: The classification of Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita moschataNote
that the use of the two “Austroamerican Group” names is contrary to the provisions
of Article 6.1 of the ICNCP, as both species fall within the same denomination
class (ICNCP, Appendix IX).
Under the Botanical Code, it is quite clear that homonymy is permanent – “once a
homonym, always a homonym” – and cannot be affected by any subsequent nomenclatural
act. But under the Cultivated Code, it appears that this is not always so. What
happens when a cultivated species, belonging to a given denomination class, is
transferred to another genus that is not included in that denomination class? In other
words, is the transfer of a cultivated species from one genus which is a part or the
whole of a denomination class, to another genus outside that denomination class, to
be construed as division of a denomination class, as provided for by Art. 6.3 of the
Cultivated Code? It is not clear from Art. 6.3 whether or not this is so, without an announcement
and publication by the appropriate statutory or international plant registration
authority (see Fig. 2). But if the answer to this question is “yes”, then an epithet
previously rejected as duplicated in the former, broader denomination class, may
have to be reinstated for a cultivar within the new, narrower denomination class under
the provisions of Art. 10.1 of the Cultivated Code.
Typification
The application of names governed by the Botanical Code is determined by means of
nomenclatural types. In the Cultivated Code, there is no mandatory provision for typi-
56
Cucurbita maxima
ssp. andreana
ssp. maxima
Parvifructina Group
Austroamerican Group
Zapallito Group
Banana Group
Hubbard Group
Mammoth Group
Turban Group
Cucurbita moschata
Austroamerican Group
Mexican Group
Palaeotropical Group
Eurasian Group
Cheese Group
Japonica Group