New term - cultivarEpithet

[tucotuco]

New Term

Submitter: Markus Döring
Justification: cultivar names can only be shared now via the full scientificName and need their own atomized term.
Proponents: Workshop on Biodiversity Data Quality (2016-03), TCS
Definition: Part of the name of a cultivar, cultivar group or grex that follows the scientific name.
Comment: According to the Rules of the Cultivated Plant Code, a cultivar name consists of a botanical name followed by a cultivar epithet. The value given as the cultivarEpithet should exclude any quotes. The term taxonRank should be used to indicate which type of cultivated plant name (e.g. cultivar, cultivar group, grex) is concerned. This epithet, including any enclosing apostrophes or suffix, should be provided in scientificName as well.
Examples: King Edward (for scientificName "Solanum tuberosum 'King Edward'" and taxonRank "cultivar"); Mishmiense (for scientificName "Rhododendron boothii Mishmiense Group" and taxonRank "cultivar group"); Atlantis (for scientificName "Paphiopedilum Atlantis grex" and taxonRank "grex").
Refines: None
Replaces: None
ABCD 2.06: http://rs.tdwg.org/abcd/terms/cultivarName or http://rs.tdwg.org/abcd/terms/cultivarGroupName or http://rs.tdwg.org/abcd/terms/breed (ABCD 3.0)

Original comment: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=141

Mar 1, 2012 comment #1 dag.endresen
One potential challenge of adding cultivar name as part of the nomenclature code is perhaps that cultivar names can have language. The very same cultivar can be released under different marketing names in different countries.

Mar 2, 2012 comment #2 wixner
isn't that a kind of synonym then? Several names referring to the same taxon. Or does the cultivar code explicitly accept several localisations for one name?

Mar 2, 2012 comment #3 wixner
There is also the need to share information about other informal name parts not governed by the nomenclatoral codes. For example bacterial strain names or temporary names in use before they have been published. Hyloxalus sp. JCS-2010a for example was updated to Hyloxalus yasuni when Paez-Vacas et al. (2010) was published. Other examples are Clostridium botulinum A112 or Clostridium botulinum A strain ATCC 19397.

Is it maybe worthwhile having an informalEpithet instead that caters for both cultivars and temporary names?

Mar 2, 2012 comment #4 dag.endresen
I believe that each 'localization' of a cultivar name could perhaps be seen as the 'valid' name in the country where the name is used/marketed - and as a 'synonym' in other countries...? I am not sure if it is always easy to pick one globally 'valid' cultivar name...? And each cultivar can have different release year in different countries, and I believe sometimes (but not always?) released and marketed under a different cultivar name...?

Mar 2, 2012 comment #5 dag.endresen
The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP, Cultivated Plant Code) seems to regulate the 'cultivar epithet' to be a distinct name within a genus - and that the cultivar name (cultivar epithet) is a different thing from the 'trade name', and that it is the 'trade name' that can be a different name for the same cultivar marketed in each country... sorry for the confusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants

Mar 2, 2012 comment #6 dag.endresen
Which could mean that there is a role in Darwin Core for both a new cultivarEpithet and an informalEpithet term...?

Mar 2, 2012 comment #7 wixner
Wikipedia suggests there is only a single cultivar epithet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivar#Cultivar_names

"A cultivar name consists of a botanical name (of a genus, species, infraspecific taxon, interspecific hybrid or intergeneric hybrid) followed by a cultivar epithet. The cultivar epithet is capitalised and enclosed by single quotes; it should not be italicized. It is permissible to place a cultivar epithet after a common name provided the common name is botanically unambiguous. Cultivar epithets published before 1 January 1959 were often given a Latin form and can be readily confused with the specific epithets in botanical names; after that date, newly coined cultivar epithets must be in a modern vernacular language to distinguish them from botanical epithets."

A cultivar name also has to be published just like a scientific name before it can be registered. So the publishedIn(Year) terms would also apply nicely.
An example registration page for aroids can be found here:
http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/reg_form_short.php

Mar 2, 2012 comment #8 dag.endresen
There seems to be two systems for cultivar names - one system of "cultivar epithet" under the ICNCP (distinct names published in a journal) - and another system of "trade designations"/"trade names" generally under the UPOV (but with varying national legislation) where different "trade name" can be protected in distinct countries (different years) for the same cultivar. I believe that both these types of "cultivar names" might perhaps be useful to track...?

"Many plants have "selling names" or "marketing names" as well as a cultivar name; the ICNCP refers to these as "trade designations". Only the cultivar name is governed by the ICNCP. It is required to be unique", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants.

Mar 6, 2012 comment #9 wixner
Added a new issue144 for strains

Sep 23, 2013 comment #12 gtuco.btuco
I would like to promote the adoption of the concepts mentioned in this issue. To do so, I will need a stronger proposal demonstrating the need to share this information - that is, that independent groups, organizations, projects have the same need and can reach a consensus proposal about how the term or terms should be used. It might be a good idea to circulate the proposal on tdwg-content and see if a community can be built around and support the additions.

[elizabetharnaud]

Following the workshop on Biodiversity Data Quality held this week, I would like to ask the integration of the vernacular name (CultivarEpithet ) into DwC. We had a discussion about running or not a quality check on this vernacular name that was recommended by the ABD Task group but for trujning a qualtiy check, we need DarwinCore standard to accept this addition. This is an important information element for our community - eco-geographic modeling agrobiodiversity is also done to identify which cultivar grows where and derive possibly traits of interest for farmers (drouhgt tolerance, salinity tolerance, tec) and then identify where this cultivar is conserved as seeds in genebanks for distribution.

[PietrH]

I'm currently working on publishing a set of occurrences in a botanical garden, this includes information the cultivars. Currently I can't find a way to encode this information properly in DarwinCore. In the meantime I've been using taxonRemarks which is not an ideal solution.

Apart from my specific use case I also see value in tracking information about the exact cultivar in the case of escaped species occurring in the wild, be it decorative or agricultural species.

In the case of the cultivarEpithet field, I expect the nomenclaturalCode should be ICNCP in this case. It is even mentioned as an example in the quick reference guide. But is there a controlled vocabulary for this field?

What about the taxonRank? What controlled vocabulary could be used? In my particular case I think it would make sense to declare cultivar for taxonRank.

I also think this issue could be broader then plants. What about animals, how would one encode breeds of dogs, horses, foul or cattle?

[nielsklazenga]

This term is in TCS, it is called cultivarNameGroup, I think. No plans to remove it. Problem is more with what label to use than with whether to have it or not or the definition.

I think 'cultivar' and 'cultivarGroup' are already in the taxonRank vocabulary?

[tucotuco]

Closing for lack of demand.

[tucotuco]

Sorry, I closed this one in error. It is back on the table.

[qgroom]

I support the addition of this term.
In addition to the use cases already mentioned, there are named cultivars that are invasive and planted. Currently it is difficult to distinguish these from wild or other named cultivars that may or may not be invasive or planted. A specific cases is the genus Narcissus that is widely planted in Europe often near wild native populations.

[nielsklazenga]

Could we rewrite the definition so that it also covers cultivar groups and grexes, i.e. all the types of names governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP)?

E.g.:

Definition: Part of the name of a cultivar, cultivar group or grex that follows the scientific name, without the enclosing apostrophes or suffix.
Usage notes: taxonRank can be used to indicate which type of cultivated plant name is concerned. This epithet, including the enclosing apostrophes or suffix, should be provided in scientificName as well.
Examples: King Edward (in Solanum tuberosum 'King Edward', a cultivar), James Grieve (in Malus domestica 'James Grieve', a cultivar), Mishmiense (in Rhododendron boothii Mishmiense Group, a cultivar group), Atlantis (in Paphiopedilum Atlantis grex, a grex).

[baskaufs]

dwc:cultivarEpithet falls into the category of "convenience terms" and should therefore be added to table 3.5 in the RDF Guide. It should not have a dwciri: analog.

[tucotuco]

Can someone please provide the correct mapping to the equivalent in ABCD?

[AaronWilton]

I support the addition of this term and the alignment with the cultivated code of nomenclature.
Agree that this is distinct from trade names and vernacular names.

[jholetschek]

ABCD has CultivarName (http://rs.tdwg.org/abcd/terms/cultivarName) and CultivarGroupName (http://rs.tdwg.org/abcd/terms/cultivarGroupName).

Examples for CultivarName: Firmgold, Granny Smith, Sturmer Pippin
for CultivaGroupName: Granny Smith Group

[tucotuco]

Thank you @jholetschek. Incorporated in the first comment.

[gdadade]

I also think this issue could be broader then plants. What about animals, how would one encode breeds of dogs, horses, foul or cattle?

Definitely needed! In ABCD this is Breed within the Zoological name container (https://abcd.tdwg.org/terms/#breed)

[tucotuco]

Help wanted to formulate the additional usage comments.

[deepreef]

I'm not a plant/cultivar person, so I'm probably not the best person to help formulate the additional usage comments. However, while I agree in principle that this concept could apply to animals (breeds, etc.), I don't think "cultivar" would be the right term. I'm struggling to think of a single term that captures both "cultivar" and "breed". I suppose "cultivarOrBreedEpithet" could work, but that's awfully cumbersome (though, perhaps no more cumbersome than, e.g., maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters). if I think of something better, I'll post it here.

[nielsklazenga]

I think the important thing is that cultivarEpithet should be applied to code-compliant names. If or when there is a Code for names of breeds of animals (and if those names have epithets), we can make a decision on whether to use the same (renamed) term for those or a different one. I would lean towards keeping them separate.

@tucotuco , I am a plant person, but not a cultivated plant person, but I will have a go at the usage comments.

EDIT: looks like I already had an attempt here: #41 (comment).

[dagendresen]

AgroVoc has plant and animal cultivar concepts distinct varieties & breeds
however, does not include any cultivar epithet

[EstebanMH-SiB]

We endorse this proposal on behalf of @SiBColombia

[mdoering]

I would also prefer to keep cultivar names and breeds distinct - unless their code and use is rather similar.
Is this slightly updated proposal acceptable?

Definition: The cultivar epithet as part of a scientific name being a cultivar plant name.

Comment: According to the Rules of the Cultivated Plant Code, a cultivar name consists of a botanical name followed by a cultivar epithet which is capitalised and enclosed by single quotes. The cultivarEpithet should exclude the quotes. The term taxonRank should be used to indicate which type of cultivated plant name (e.g. cultivar, cultivar group, grex) is concerned. This epithet, including the enclosing apostrophes or suffix, should be provided in scientificName as well.

Examples: King Edward (scientificName=Solanum tuberosum 'King Edward', rank=cultivar); Mishmiense (scientificName=Rhododendron boothii Mishmiense Group, rank=cultivar group); Atlantis (in Paphiopedilum Atlantis grex, a grex).

[nielsklazenga]

Hi @mdoering ,

According to the Rules of the Cultivated Plant Code, a cultivar name consists of a botanical name followed by a cultivar epithet which is capitalised and enclosed by single quotes.

This only goes for cultivar names s.str., while the rest of the comment and the examples also include cultivar groups and greges.

[mdoering]

Ah, but they all go at the end, right? Would this work?

According to the Rules of the Cultivated Plant Code, a cultivar name consists of a botanical name followed by a cultivar epithet. The value given as the cultivarEpithet should exclude any quotes. The term taxonRank should be used to indicate which type of cultivated plant name (e.g. cultivar, cultivar group, grex) is concerned. This epithet, including any enclosing apostrophes or suffix, should be provided in scientificName as well.

[nielsklazenga]

Yes, that's good.

[mdoering]

Definition: The cultivar epithet as part of a scientific name being a cultivar plant name.

Comment: According to the Rules of the Cultivated Plant Code, a cultivar name consists of a botanical name followed by a cultivar epithet. The value given as the cultivarEpithet should exclude any quotes. The term taxonRank should be used to indicate which type of cultivated plant name (e.g. cultivar, cultivar group, grex) is concerned. This epithet, including any enclosing apostrophes or suffix, should be provided in scientificName as well.

Examples: King Edward (scientificName=Solanum tuberosum 'King Edward', rank=cultivar); Mishmiense (scientificName=Rhododendron boothii Mishmiense Group, rank=cultivar group); Atlantis (in Paphiopedilum Atlantis grex, a grex).

[nielsklazenga]

That is a different definition from the one that went in and came out of the public review, and it is not an improvement.

This is your initial definition:

Part of the name of a cultivar, cultivar group or grex that follows the scientific name

I think you should keep that. Maybe just change 'scientific' into 'botanical', so that cultivar names can still be scientific names.

[tucotuco]

Done.

[aakerro]

So this new cultivar epiteth is pr def a taxon rank with a defined position in the taxonomic hierarchy? In that case where?

[mdoering]

There are 3 formal ranks for cultivars existing, cultivar, grex and group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivar#Formal_definition

In GBIF we have "ranked" cultivars rather low in the rank ordering:
https://github.com/gbif/name-parser/blob/master/name-parser-api/src/main/java/org/gbif/nameparser/api/Rank.java#L268

[aakerro]

Thanks for quick reply.

I wonder if you are aware of the work by Ronald van den Berg et al. arguing that the ICNCP has a flaw at its core: the attempt to treat cultivar as a taxon in taxonomy for wild organisms, and that cultivars instead should be treated as part of a separate cultonomy for cultivated plants (with crop, cultivar-group and cultivar as the only culta*) so that a cultivar can be connected to the adequat level in the taxonomy?

E.g. Rosa 'Cultivar Name' on genus level.

Their conlusions are summed up at p.50 here https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/3433

)* They propose the word culton be introduced as the foundation for a cultonomy, the way taxon has this role for taxonomy.

[aakerro]

Any reactions to my last entry?

Correction the system proposed by Hetterscheid and van den Berg has three systematic categories (with crop, cultivar-group and cultivar), since culta referes to the content of the category.

See also a project lauched yesterday https://culton.org/

[mdoering]

Thanks for the links, that is an interesting development. I wonder how well DwC already fits to exchange a cultonomy and what else would be needed?

[aakerro]

Thanks. A little too interesting sometimes for me, as I'm not a biologist nor a computer scientist, but just someone who had to solve these issues to deliver a system for a hobby seed exchange, and now we're suddenly looking at promoting a new cultonomic theory reform.

To your question: The way I've come to understand this, DwC isn't where to solve cultonomy. That's why we use a separate culton table where every crop culton has a link to a taxon. This allows for more than one crop with the same taxon.

Example: both Welch onion and Japanese bunching onion, which has to be separated cultonomically, can be assosiated to GBIF taxon 2856504 Allium fistulosum. The English name given in GBIF is only the last of the two, which is probably symptomatic.

This way of associating taxon and culton, provides the necessary flexibility in this combined system, as they are kept far enough apart. It is also easy to change association without compromizing the names of culta, which is one of the main goals of the project.

It is too early to conclude if we're on the right path with this project, so we must see how it goes. There are still many issues to solve as we get deeper into the details. Headaches for some time:

What should we replace the culton crop with in a system for both plant cultivars, animal breeds and mushroom and bacteria strains? Something with "product" seems most promising perhaps.

I would like also to end up with just one word for the basal culton cultivar, and have suggested cultivar for all life forms, but receive a lot of protests on that one, understandably. Have to live with both cultivar, breed and strain. (Ref. discussion earlier in this thread.)

By the the way, the "grex" from the ICNCP we think is wrongly set up, and don't use it. Cultivar group we use.