Proposal to extend the restriction on nothogeneric name length to include bigeneric hybrids

Abstract

Article H.6 of Appendix 1 to the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) provides clear instructions concerning the formation of nothogeneric names of intergeneric hybrids. Art. H.6.3, dealing with the names for intergeneric hybrids derived from four or more genera, and Art. H.6.4, dealing with the names of trigeneric hybrids, both explicitly limit the length of all such names to a maximum of eight syllables. Article H.6.2, which deals with the names of bigeneric hybrids, does not stipulate any length restriction, however, and by implication such names may therefore be of unrestricted length. Surely this could not have been the intention when Art. H.6 was originally drafted? The proposer teaches plant nomenclature to horticulture students and has often experienced that this anomaly in the restriction placed on the length of generic names causes confusion, with students finding it difficult to understand why some names should be subjected to a length restriction and others not. Although it is rather unlikely that nothogeneric names formed according to the provisions of Art. H.6.2 will result in words exceeding eight syllables, the same argument could be applied to the names of hybrids resulting from four or more genera, where the name is simply composed from the name of a person to which the termination -ara is added, and for which an explicit length restriction applies.