Maksym Polyakov wrote: > > Dear listmembers, > > On behalf of my coleagues from Ukrainian Agricultural University > I would like to ask (especially North American foresters), > is Quercus rubra the same as Quercus borealis? > If so, where was it approved (e.g. by Botanical Congress)? > > Maksym Polyakov. An oak, by any other name, is it still an oak? >From Harlow and Harrar [1958] "Textbook of Dendrology", pages 10-11,(my old forestry textbook) comes the following explanation about scientific naming conventions of trees: " The use of scientific names and the coinage of new ones are governed by a botanical code of nomenclature. The first code of this sort was outlined at the Paris International Botanical Congress in 1867 and provided (1) that a plant could have but one valid scientific name; (2) that the name should be the oldest usable one beginning with Linnaeus' "Species Plantarum," published in 1753; (3) that two different species or two different genera could not bear the same name; (4) that the generic and specific combinations should be succeeded by the name or names of their authors. In 1905, almost forty years later, the third International Botanical Congress was held in Vienna, Austria. It was generally agreed that the Paris code hade been satisfactory, and with a few minor changes it was readopted for permanent use. At this congress a group of American taxonomists submitted a code which was rejected by the general assembly in favor of the revised Paris code, now commonly reffered to as the Vienna code. It is perhaps unfortunate that this body of Americans decided to use their own code in spite of its reception in Vienna. Thus, while the Vienna code became the accepted one for the botanical world at large, both the Vienna and the American codes were used in the United States for a number of years." " So far as the species included in this book [Harlow and Harrar] are concerned, there are only a few which do not have the same name in both codes. The rules were revised at the Fifth International Botanical Congress at Cambridge in 1930, agreement was reached, and the best features of both codes were combined. The concept of types, including type specimens, type species, etc., was adopted from the American code." The above mentioned text identifies Northern Red Oak as Quercus rubra L. [Quercus borealis Michx. f.]. Based on the above, it seems that "rubra" preceeded "borealis" and that "borealis" comes from the American code. However, from the United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 271, "Silvics of Forest Trees of the United States" [compiled by H.A. Fowells, 1965], we find on page 588, Northern Red Oak referred to as Quercus rubra L., with the following information is provided under the heading - Races and Hybrids: " Formerly, two races of northern red oak were recognized. These were Quercus borealis and Q. borealis var. maxima. The distinguishing characteristics were size and shape of the acorns. The acorns of Q. borealis were smaller, narrower, and had a deeper cup than those of Q. borealis var. maxima. Both of these names have been discontinued and Q. rubra, an earlier name, has been restored." Just my humble contribution to the discussion. -- Norman Goba, R.P.F. ImageSense Land Information Associates 66 Tilson Road, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M4S 1P5 Tel:416-487-2818 Fax:416-487-8879 Email: ngoba@the-wire.com
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0