Bagging apparently was partly injurious on these two trees and caused some decrease in nut yield. There is, however, no evidence that emasculation in itself causes a decreased nut yield, rather it appears to be somewhat beneficial if we are to judge from the results of this experiment. At least, one would be justified in concluding that any harmful effect is negligible. Completely emasculated flowers yielded 29.1 and 13.7 per cent as compared to 14.5 and 0.0 per cent where only unisexual male catkins were removed, and 25.0 and 3.7 per cent where no emasculation was done. The controls which were not emasculated and not hand pollinated, show that the trees are practically completely self sterile; only an occasional nut is set from self-fertilization.
Vegetative Propagation
In vegetative propagation the tree breeder has a very important tool. For instance, if a number of desirable phenotypes have been selected in the forest, they can be propagated vegetatively and planted under uniform conditions where it will be possible to "estimate" their genotype, without the time-consuming progeny testing. Trees propagated vegetatively from old mature trees usually will start flowering very soon after they become established; thus the necessity of doing pollination work in very large trees can be eliminated. Furthermore, it enables the tree breeders to maintain trees of a desirable genotype unaltered for an indefinite length of time without first establishing pure lines through inbreeding. Finally, it may be possible to make valuable individuals available to the forest owners for field planting if they can be propagated vegetatively in large enough numbers at low cost.
Compared to propagation by grafting, the rooting of cuttings is both simpler and cheaper, if it can be done. Chestnut cuttings are, unfortunately, very difficult to root. In the past six years numerous experiments have been conducted in order to find a way to root the various chestnut species. We have tried to root dormant, as well as greenwood, cuttings, the conventional twig cuttings as well as leaf-bud cuttings; numerous hormone treatments using several different hormones in solution and as powders, over a wide range of concentrations, have been tried; a special chamber in which an automatic atomizer nozzle sprays the cuttings intermittently has been used. Results have always been poor. Dormant cuttings have broken dormancy, sent out new leaves, formed an abundance of callus on the basal end, but failed to develop any roots, and finally after several months have died. Greenwood cuttings also have failed to develop roots in almost all cases. The best results have been obtained with leaf-bud cuttings. In some cases 10 to 20 per cent have rooted; here, however, the difficulty has been the failure of the bud to break dormancy and start growth, and all the rooted cuttings have eventually died.
The rooting by airlayering has been tried in a few cases. Airlayering is the rooting of twigs while they are still attached to the tree. Some distance from the terminal end of the twig an oblique cut is made, or the bark is removed around the twig for about 3/4". The cut or ringed area is treated with a hormone powder, wrapped in sphagnum moss and covered with a wrapping of polyethelene. Attempts to root twigs on older trees by this method have so far failed. Recently successful rooting of twigs on young seedlings by airlayering has been reported from Spain, and from France comes the report that stooling of young seedlings is highly successful. In the stooling method the young plants are cut off a short distance above the ground level. As new shoots grow out, their basal ends are gradually covered with soil until a 5-6" mound has been formed. Left in this manner they may develop their own root system and can eventually be detached from the mother root. That the rooting of young seedling material should be possible, while that from older trees will not root, is not unusual. It is generally accepted that the younger the tree from which the cuttings are taken, the easier the cuttings are to root. Experiments along these lines are planned for 1954.
Cooperative Hybrid Chestnut Plantations
In last year's report we described our hybrid test plots established in cooperation with the U.S.D.A., Bureau of Plant Industry, Division of Forest Pathology.
On March 18, 1953 a new plantation was started at Grafton, West
Virginia. As usual, we furnished 50 plants for this test plot.
From the reports from Dr. J. D. Diller, of the then Division of Forest Pathology, our hybrids so far have shown a promising performance, although their average growth rate so far is slightly slower than that of the U.S.D.A. hybrids and straight Chinese chestnut. From the standpoint of blight resistance and growth habit they are at least equal to the two other sources and may be slightly better; however, it is still too early to make any definite evaluation of the results.
Insect Injuries
The most damaging insect pests in the Sleeping Giant Plantation are the spring canker worms, the mites (Paratetranychus bicolor), Japanese beetles and the chestnut weevils.
A spraying schedule has now been worked out which keeps these pests under control:
1. Dormant spray with "Scalecide" in middle April against the canker worms and mites.
2. Two applications of "Aramite" (6-7 lbs. per acre) in the middle and toward the end of June. These sprayings have given good control against mites. Where the outbreak is very severe it may be necessary to spray with "Aramite" also in July and again in August.
3. Spraying with DDT in middle August and the first week in September has controlled the weevils successfully.
In concluding this report we desire to express our thanks to the many interested persons who have contributed pollen, nuts and/or scions to further this project.
Dr. W. C. Deming
On November 17th, 1910, twelve dreamers met in the Botanical Museum, Bronx Park, New York City, to form an organization of nut growers in the north. It was largely an organizational meeting. No papers were read, but some solid foundations were laid. Dr. W. C. Deming served as temporary chairman of the meeting and, fortunately for the cause, was then elected as the new body's Secretary-Treasurer, an office which has always called for executive ability and untiring industry.
This election paid off. At the second meeting, held at the New York State College of Agriculture, in Ithaca, it appeared that the new Secretary had communicated with a large number of leading nurserymen, with national and State horticulturists and with others. It was reported at this meeting that only two nurserymen had accepted the invitation to attend. "So", reported Secretary Deming, "evidently the others do not think the northern nut grower is one whose acquaintance is worth cultivating. We hope to convince them to the contrary."
This was done. At the second meeting, the Association could count sixty members. Professor John Craig, of Cornell, in noting this growth, said, "Dr. Deming has not merely performed the routine duties of the secretary, but he has studied the case and has presented a good many facts not apparent on the surface. It seems to me that this augurs well."
The augury proved prophetic. The Association continued to grow. But without this first intelligent, persistent effort upon the part of. Dr. Deming, it could hardly have survived.
This small bit of history is illustrative of the whole life of Dr. Deming. His deep interest in the purposes and hopes of our Association has never ceased. Upon his own ground he planted, and budded and grafted many nut trees, and has given away the fruits of his labors with a prodigal good will. Deming's Burnham pecan and the Deming Purple black walnut are the only introductions, so far as this writer knows, which bear his name.
Again, some thirty years after the first meeting mentioned above, Dr. Deming thought up and carried through another project which makes the Association repeatedly his debtor, an Index of the first thirty volumes of the Association's Annual Reports. It is a work which saves the conscientious worker in northern nut culture hours and hours of labor.
And now our Dean, the last of the founding fathers, has left us for the Elysian Fields. His gentle, kindly face will be sadly missed by those who knew him, but he lives on in every tree whose planting his labors inspired and in every mind which has been, even unconsciously, his heir.
A letter from Miss Charlotte Deming, a sister, assures us, somewhat touchingly, but happily, of this fact:
"My brother's heart was with and in the work of the Association. He was happy to know of its expansion into such a wide-spread organization, and very proud of having been made its Dean."
Dr. Deming lived a full life. He was a physician of distinction, a graduate of Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and was retired from the army after World War I with the rank of Major. After graduation from Columbia, he served his internship in a New York hospital, then on the medical staff of the State Immigrant Hospital, Ward's Island. He began private practice in Westchester County, New York and, later, for many years, served as examining physician with the Veterans' Administration in Hartford, Connecticut.
It is interesting to know, as told by his son, Hawthorne, that Mrs. Deming, formerly Imogene Hawthorne, was the youngest granddaughter of the immortal Nathaniel. It is evident that Dr. Deming, both in private life and in his public interests, was a strong believer in the value of good blood-lines.
John Davidson
The Nomenclature of Nut Varieties
GEORGE H. M. LAWRENCE, Bailey Hortorium, Ithaca, N. Y.
This article is intended to introduce to you the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants[6] and to point out the ways in which
that Code serves the interests and needs of members of the Northern Nut
Growers Association.
[6] The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, formulated and adopted by the International Botanical Congress Committee for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants and the International Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature and Registration at the Thirteenth International Horticultural Congress, London, September 1952.
Copies of the full text of the Code are available from the Secretary,
American Horticultural Council, Inc., Bailey Hortorium, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N. Y., (25c postpaid).
The Code as published by the Royal Horticultural Society is a booklet of about 30 pages, containing an excellent historical introduction by W. T. Stearn, a summary or abridged version of the Code, and the full text. It is of necessity somewhat technical in its phraseology, and in places its jargon is overwhelming. Recently, Dr. John S. L. Gilmour, Director of the Cambridge Botanic Gardens, and formerly Director of the R. H. S. Trial Gardens at Wisley, published a very lucid and down-to-earth interpretation of the principle provisions of the Code. It is reproduced with permission at the conclusion of this introduction.
The questions asked about the Code include,
"What's it got that earlier codes did not have?"
"What's new about it?"
"How does it affect me?"
There are several answers to the first query, but the most significant is that here for the first time we have a Code that represents the thinking of horticulturists from all leading horticultural centers of the world. I was a member of a committee of thirteen (representing 6 countries), that met for nine days in Stockholm in 1950 to prepare and edit the first international draft of this Code. Those of each nationality had met in their country previously, with their own leaders, and had come to this round-table session with fixed ideas of what they wanted. By mid-evening of the first session it became apparent that the Swedes, the Dutch, the British, and the Americans had sent some of their most persuasive, vocative, and determined countrymen to represent them. The Swiss representative restrained himself admirably until after the initial lines had been drawn. It looked then as if there might be several codes, but before recessing several hours later some concessions had been made, and discussion on the more volatile points had been deferred. The differences of opinion were well founded and held with good reason. Some reflected an unawareness of situations in an unrelated horticultural field, e.g., a nurseryman did not know the problems encountered by the Danes in developing so-called varieties of vegetables, or by the American in producing hybrid-corn—each calling for different provisions in the Code, nor could the rose specialist be expected to comprehend the genetic situations encountered in many types of hybridity. One botanist in the group had no appreciation of the intricacies of problems and situations found when trying to name some complex groups of cultigens. Add to these reasons the fact that most of these men were representatives or spokesmen for larger groups or national organizations "back home" and were not authorized to act independently from earlier decisions by those groups, and one can only marvel that at the end of the 9-day period we came up with a detailed and workable draft accepted unanimously, and which was modified in no major respect at the more recently International Horticultural Congress in London.
The period between the Stockholm meeting and the London Congress was utilized to distribute mimeographed copies of the Stockholm draft to horticultural leaders in all countries, to provide opportunity for suggesting changes and new provisions for the Code, and to hold one committee meeting of international level, at London in November 1951. As a result, the present Code is the first truly international regulating guide that has been produced as an aid to persons concerned with the nomenclature of cultivated plants. The individual who may object to some provision of the Code must remember that its presence in the Code has had the support of scores of specialists, representing no less than 16 nations and that there is no part of the Code that was not acceptable to a majority of the delegates of each nation and to the groups representing them. The significance of this international character of the Code is not to be discounted.
It is only proper at this point to tell you how the U. S. A. was represented at the International Horticultural Congress in London. Practically every country except the United States has a national horticultural organization, comparable in some respects to the Royal Horticultural Society, with which you are surely familiar. This country had none. When the "call" went out for representatives and delegates to the International Horticultural Congress, that for this country was delivered to the agricultural attache at our Embassy in London. It is reported that he referred it to his home office and attended some preliminary meetings in London. The matter was referred to the U. S. Department of Agriculture in Washington and there sat, apparently, for months. In the interim, private communications were flying across the Atlantic in both directions between interested horticulturists and finally the matter was referred by the Honorable Secretary of the Congress direct to American societies of horticulture to ensure that American views and interests would be adequately represented. It boiled down to the United States being represented by those persons who were going to be at the Congress anyway and by men who were not specialists in nomenclatural matters. Appraised of their lot, these persons made every effort to be briefed and informed on as many aspects of the provisions of the proposed Code as possible. As stated later by Dr. S. L. Emsweller (a member of the committee, representing U. S. D. A. and the American Society for Horticultural Science), this situation brought into sharp focus the need in this country for a single horticultural organization of organizations that could serve as authorized in matters at the international level. The American Horticultural Council, to which the Northern Nut Growers Association belongs may become that organization, but only when authorized by its membership.
Many readers may be familiar with earlier codes, as that adopted by the American Pomological Society (which dates from 1847), that by the American Society of Agronomists (formulated in 1917-18), and with a third code adopted at the sessions of the Botanical Congress meeting in Cambridge, England, in 1935. Knowing of the provisions of these codes, you may ask, "What has the new one got that is different?" There are many new features of which the more significant are given below.
Perhaps foremost is the recognition that, for the most part, the so-called varieties of garden plants are not uniform in their behavior. Some are nothing more than transplants of variations found in the wild, such as the Japanese Juglans Sieboldiana var. cordiformis, a population having its own geographic range and distinguished from the typical element of the species by several morphological characters. It is a botanical variety that is cultivated. It is not a product of domestication.
The code distinguishes from this botanical variety those so-called varieties that are the result of domestication, variants that have been produced in cultivation but are not known to occur and perpetuate themselves in the wild, such as Schwedler's maple known as Acer Platanoides var. Schwedleri. Plants of this group, that may be grown from seed and which do show a limited variability, are distinguished from botanical varieties by placing them in a new category called cultivar (a name coined long ago by L. H. Bailey and meaning, a variety from cultivation). The abbreviation for the category is cv. Furthermore, in an effort to differentiate cultivar names from botanical names, it is provided that they be treated as are vernacular or fancy (common) names. That is, that the name be placed in single quotes and not italicized e.g., Acer Platanoides cv. 'Schwedleri'.
A third category is that of clone. A clone is an individual propagated not from seeds but by asexual means, as by grafting, budding, cuttings, etc. Most so-called varieties of nuts are clones. A clone may be selected from a species population, from a botanical variety, from a cultivar, or from anyone of several types of hybrid complexes. It may appear as a mutant of another clone. The name for it may, where there is need for precision, be attached to the name of the species (or hybrid) from which it was selected, as Corylus Avellana cl. 'DuChilly' or reduced to Corylus cl. 'DuChilly.'
For the hybridizer naming and introducing new hybrids to cultivation, the Code is more helpful than any previous set of rules and the needs of hybridizers of various groups have been considered. Many examples illustrating application of each provision are given in the unabridged version.
The person naming plants will find much helpful guidance with regard to the selection of names which should be considered if international usage is to prevail. The Code is just that, a set of dicta provided for guidance by horticulturists throughout the world that there may prevail
a greater uniformity, accuracy, and fixity of names,
a lessening of procedures that would lead to confusion and error if
adequately supported or widely adopted, and
a provision for change and revision.
One section of the code ("C") dealing with Registration might well come within the framework of interest and activity of the Northern Nut Growers Association. This section, which suffers materially by condensation in the abbreviated text that follows, occupies nearly a page in the unabridged edition. It envisages the establishment of an international registering body, with headquarters for different groups located in different countries, e.g., that for tulips in the Netherlands, for rhododendrons in Britain, for roses in the United States, etc. The task of compiling, maintaining, and publishing such a registrar (and rejecting names not in conformance with the Code) will fall in many cases on the special plant societies concerned. When societies for a given group of plants exist in 2 or more countries, they will be expected to collaborate. Insofar as I know the Northern Nut Growers Association has not set up any mechanism for the registration of names given to cultivars, hybrids, and clones of nuts. To do so would be to perform a very real service for your membership, for the industry in this country, and would place the Association in a key spot when the proposal for an international registry is activated. The agitation for this phase of international application of the Code is considerable and is more evident in Europe than here. If the Association takes an active stand in the matter and develops a center of registry of nut names for this continent, it may very well display a quality of initiative and service that will make it pre-eminent on the international level and will cause others to look to it for guidance, information, and leadership.
A careful consideration of this Code is commended to all and those interested in the topic are urged to procure a copy of the booklet giving the unabridged edition and Stearn's excellent historical account of the subject.
The New Code For the Naming of Cultivated Plants[7]
[7] Reproduced with permission from Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, vol. 69, pp. 12-21, 1954.
J. S. L. GILMOUR, Chairman of the International Committee on
Horticultural Nomenclature and Registration
Anyone who deals in any way with cultivated plants uses plant names. This glimpse of the obvious ought to mean that the appearance of a new Code for the naming of cultivated plants should be a memorable event for all gardeners. I say "ought to mean" advisedly, because there is no doubt that, in the past, Codes of Nomenclature have made little appeal to gardeners, the great majority of whom have been blissfully unaware of their existence. As a consequence, many horticulturists—on hearing of "a new Code"—will, no doubt, raise a respectful (or contemptuous) eyebrow and get on with reading their latest catalogue. The aim of this article is to persuade readers of the Society's JOURNAL, not only that this attitude is against their own interests, but that a good deal of quiet entertainment can be extracted from trying to use plant names correctly—if only the entertainment of putting their neighbour right!
It is true that, hitherto, there has been ample excuse for ignorance. Although Codes for the naming of cultivated plants have existed, in some shape or form, for nearly 100 years, they have been printed in obscure publications, quite inaccessible to ordinary mortals. This excuse no longer holds. The full text, plus a summary, of the new Code can be purchased for one shilling and three pence (post free) from the Society, and, in addition, reference to it has been made in many horticultural and other periodicals. What, then, is the new Code about, how does it affect gardeners, and what should they do about it?
In the first place it is not about the Latin names of wild species or varieties—names like Rhododendron ponticum and Aesculus octandra var. vestita. Whether wild plants are grown in gardens or not, their Latin names are governed by quite a separate Code, devised by botanists for the purpose. It is true, of course, that gardeners have to use Latin names for many of the wild plants that they grow, and equally true, unfortunately, that the frequent changes in these names are a source of annoyance to everyone; but that is quite another story, with which we are not concerned here. At the last International Horticultural Congress steps were taken which we all hope will result, with the cooperation of botanists, in the stabilization of widely used Latin names of cultivated plants.
No, the new Code deals, not with wild species, varieties and hybrids, but with what are commonly called "garden varieties"—namely, forms which have been brought into existence by selection, hybridization, or other similar processes devised by man, and are maintained in cultivation as clones or pure lines by man's care and skill—such plants as Rose 'Peace,' Apple 'Beauty of Bath,' and thousands of others. The distinction between "wild" plants and "garden varieties" is not absolutely clear cut, and in the Code a closer definition is attempted—but for our present purpose the difference is obvious enough.
In the Code, it is recommended that "garden varieties" should technically be called "cultivars." This has been their official name for many years and it is clearly desirable, if the two categories of "wild" and "cultivated" varieties are to be recognized, to have a short and internationally current word for each of them. "Variety" and "cultivar" serve this purpose admirably, but it is not to be expected that all gardeners will make the distinction and adopt the word "cultivar" in ordinary parlance, at any rate immediately. Personally, however, I hope and believe that eventually "cultivar" will find favour. It is a clear and easily understood word and will, I think, prove useful to those gardeners who care for accuracy and precision in their craft, and especially to those who have dealings with fellow-gardeners in other countries.
The Code, then, deals with the names of cultivars. It may be helpful, I think, to consider its rules and regulations under three headings: firstly, those of interest to all gardeners who have occasion to write the names of cultivars; secondly, those which are concerned with the coining of new names; and thirdly, those more technical provisions which are of interest primarily to horticulturists studying a particular group and trying to establish what are the correct names for its cultivars.
1. The Writing of Cultivar-Names
The most important point, perhaps, concerning the names of cultivars is that they should not be in Latin, but in any modern language using the so-called Roman alphabet (i.e. the alphabet in which English, French, German, etc., are written). The reason for this is, of course, to distinguish, at a glance, names of cultivars from names of wild varieties, which are in Latin. In the future, Latin names for cultivars will definitely not be allowed by the Code, but we are faced with the fait accompli of hundreds of existing Latin names which have been widely used for many years. For example: the dwarf conifers abound with cultivars called 'nana,' 'prostrata,' 'compacta' and the like, and such names as 'albus,' 'variegatus,' and 'plenus' occur in almost every cultivated genus. It would clearly be foolish to try to alter all these, and the Code accepts such legacies from the past as permanently with us. (As we shall see, however, a distinction is made between the writing of Latin cultivar-names and Latin varietal-names.)
The vast majority, then, of cultivar-names are vernacular or "fancy" names like 'Winston Churchill.' How should the full name of a cultivar be written? The complete and technically correct form, including the Latin name of the species from which the cultivar has been derived, is illustrated in the following example: Sedum spectabile Boreau, cv. 'Brilliant,' but I hasten to add that this lengthy designation is for use only on full-dress occasions! In the example, Sedum is the name of the genus, spectabile the name of the species (technically called the "specific epithet"), Boreau the name of the man who first described the species under that name (technically called "the authority" for the name), cv. the abbreviation of cultivar, and 'Brilliant' the cultivar-name for the particular cultivar concerned. It should be noted (1) that the generic name and specific epithet are printed in italics, (2) that the cultivar-name begins with a capital letter, is printed in ordinary Roman type, and is enclosed in single quotation marks, and (3) that there is no "authority" after the cultivar-name. These three points are important, and apply to the writing of all names of cultivars. If we wish to cut down this rather formidable string of words for every-day use, the authority can be omitted in all except very technical writing. Secondly, the abbreviation cv. can normally be left out, as the vernacular form, single quotes, and Roman type of 'Brilliant' indicate quite clearly that it is a cultivar-name, and not the name of a wild variety. In this shortened form, therefore, the name would read simply:
Sedum spectabile 'Brilliant'
and this is the normal method of writing the names of cultivars.
There are, however, two additional refinements that should be mentioned—apart from the special case of cultivars derived from hybrids, which I will deal with later. The first concerns those Latin cultivar-names which are left over from the past. These should be printed in Roman type and enclosed in single quotes to distinguish them from Latin varietal names; thus one would write Thuja orientalis 'elegantissima,' where 'elegantissima' is a cultivar-name, but Aesculus octandra var. vestita, where vestita is the name of a wild variety.
The second point refers to the omission of any authority after a cultivar-name. Many cultivars are first described in reports of trials, in catalogues, and other anonymous publications; this makes the quoting of an authority impractical, but there is provision in the Code for writing the raiser's or introducer's name in brackets after the cultivar-name if so desired, thus: Weigela 'Avalanche' (Lemoine).
2. Naming New Cultivars
General
Let us suppose that a nurseryman, park superintendent, or amateur gardener has just flowered a batch of seedlings of, say, Helenium, and that he spots one as being of a new type and worthy of propagation. In due course he shows the plant at a fortnightly show, under a number, and an Award of Merit is given to it. He must now find a cultivar-name for his new plant. His first problem, of course, is to choose a name that has not been used before in the genus Helenium. If he picks on a very unusual personal name he can be fairly certain that he is the first to use it. If, however, he prefers a more general name, like 'Innocence' or 'Venus,' there is a danger that it has been used before. If there existed a registration authority for Helenium names, as there does, for example, for names of Daffodils, he could, of course, consult this authority, but in its absence he must do his best to comb the likely literature—for example the Index to this JOURNAL, nurserymen's catalogues, etc.—and to assure himself that his chosen name has not already been used. His next step is to make certain that the name is in accordance with the best practice for coining such names. Here is where the Code will help him. In it he will find (under Section F) a series of rules for his guidance, based on the accumulated experience of horticulturists of many nations. I will not repeat these rules here—they can be read in the Code—but perhaps the most important, apart from the rule already quoted that the name must not be in Latin, is that it should be short (not more than two words), should avoid forms of address liable to be confused (e.g. Mr., Mrs. and Miss) and, as far as possible, should be easily pronounceable by all nationalities. As the Code says, 'Centenaire de Rozain-Bourcharlat,' 'Diplomagartenbauinspektor,' and 'Eldwyth Cholmondeley' are not looked upon with favour as cultivar-names! Having chosen a name, it is essential to ensure that it is published, together with an adequate description, since the Code does not recognize names that are not published, or are published with no description. The Code lays down what is meant by publication, and by adequate description. The names of plants which receive an Award at Vincent Square are automatically published, with a description, in this JOURNAL, but for other methods of publication the Code should be consulted.
Hybrids
The naming of cultivars derived from crosses between two or more different species, belonging to the same or different genera, involves rather special problems. By "derived from" I mean not only the first generation from a species cross, but all subsequent generations and back-crosses with the original parents or with members of the first or later generations. Any cultivar which is the progeny of a species cross, however remote, comes, for the purpose of the Code, under the heading of a hybrid and its naming is subject to definite rules. The full name of a "hybrid cultivar" must be regarded as consisting of three distinct parts: (1) the name of the genus (or "hybrid genus" if a hybrid between two or more genera is concerned); (2) a "collective" name or phrase covering all the progeny resulting from the particular species-cross concerned; and (3) a cultivar-name for the particular form (cultivar) under consideration. In the name Viburnum x bodnantense 'Dawn,' Viburnum is the generic name, x bodnantense is the collective name for all progeny of the cross V. fragans x V. grandiflorum, and 'Dawn' is the cultivar-name for a particular seedling of this parentage. It is essential always to bear in mind these three distinct parts of the name of a garden hybrid, even if, as it often done, one or other of the parts is omitted in actual usage; the three parts broadly correspond, of course, to the generic name, specific epithet, and cultivar-name of a non-hybrid cultivar (see above).
Let us consider these three parts in turn and see what types of name can be used in each part in actual practice—and how this affects the naming of new "hybrid cultivars."
The first part, the generic name, presents no difficulties, except in the case of new hybrids between two or more genera. Names of such "hybrid genera" are usually "manufactured" from a combination of the names of the parent genera (e.g. x Heucherella, from Heuchera and Tiarella); in the case of hybrids between more than two genera, however, where a "combination" name would be unwieldy, it is permissible to make a new name by adding the termination ara to the name of a person connected with the plant concerned (e.g. x Sanderara for a tri-generic orchid hybrid). Before making a new "hybrid generic" name, a botanist should be consulted, as a Latin description in proper, botanical form must be provided. It will have been noticed that a multiplication sign is placed in front of the names of "hybrid genera," but after the generic name in the case of hybrids within a single genus; further details on this point are given later.
The second part of the full name of a hybrid is a more tricky business. It is, as I have said, a collective designation for all the progeny of the particular cross concerned, and it may take one or all of three possible forms:—
(1) If the parentage is known, a bare formula consisting of the names of the parents, in alphabetical order, connected with a multiplication sign, e.g. Lewisia cotyledon x rediviva.
(2) A name in Latin form (corresponding to a non-hybrid specific epithet), preceded by a multiplication sign, e.g. Viburnum x bodnantense.
(3) A vernacular phrase containing the word "hybrid," "cross," "grex" (Latin for flock or group), or other similar word, making evident the collective nature of the phrase, e.g. Lilium 'Bellingham Hybrids.'
Why do we have to have these three different forms for the second part of the full name, and when, to put it briefly, should we use which?
I must admit that practice on this particular point is as yet by no means fixed, and no doubt it will be modified considerably during the next few years, as more horticulturists try to apply the Code to the groups in which they are interested.
In order to understand the alternatives available, it will be helpful, I think, to consider first the third part of the full name, as the use of this, and of the second part, are very closely connected. The third part, as I have said, is a cultivar-name of a particular form of the hybrid concerned, and, in the first place, it is extremely important to realize that every cultivated hybrid that is considered worth naming at all should receive a cultivar-name from the outset of its "career," even if, at the time, only one form is known, or is considered worth naming. To take an actual example, at the time when the new hybrid Viburnum x bodnantense was described in the Botanical Magazine, only one form, or clone, of it had been "put into circulation," and yet that single clone was given a cultivar-name, 'Dawn.' The object of doing this was to be able, in the future, to refer by name to this particular clone and so avoid confusion with any later, and possibly inferior, forms of the same cross that might be produced. In the absence of the name 'Dawn,' less desirable clones could legitimately be passed off under the collective name V. x bodnantense without the acquirer realising that he was not getting the original and superior form.
Bearing in mind, then, the principle that all cultivated hybrids should have a third part, cultivar-name, we can turn again to the use of the various possible designations for the second part listed above. The choice of designations depends, broadly speaking, on convenience, that is to say, on what, in practice, will be found the most useful method of referring to the plants concerned. In principle, of course, every hybrid whose parentage is known has an appropriate formula-designation, and in certain cases such a formula would be sufficient as a second part designation without inventing either a Latin name or a vernacular collective name. For instance, when there are only a very few forms of a particular cross, it might not be considered necessary to be able to refer to the forms collectively, and a second part name would not then be given. For example, Rubus 'Merton Thornless,' when raised, was the only form of the hybrid R. rusticanus inermis x thyrsiger to be put into circulation, and it was not given a second part designation other than the appropriate formula. On the whole, however, it is usually desirable to have a second part, collective designation, rather than a formula only. Whether such designation should be a Latin name or a vernacular phrase, or both, depends on a number of factors which, as I have said, are not yet fully worked out or appreciated. Broadly speaking, if there are a large number of cultivars of a particular cross and these cultivars form a well-marked group, distinct from other hybrid groups in the genus, it is useful to have a vernacular designation for general use, e.g. 'Bellingham Hybrids' for all cultivars of the cross Lilium Humboldtii x pardalinum. This purpose can, however, be equally well served by a Latin name, e.g. Camellia x Williamsii for all cultivars of the cross C. japonica x saluenensis. Whichever method is chosen, two points are of great importance. Firstly, if a Latin name is given, it must be accompanied by a Latin description. Secondly a vernacular designation must contain some such word as Hybrids, Crosses, or the like, to distinguish it from a cultivar-name. The practice, in some groups, of giving "straight" cultivar-names as second part collective designations, followed by "var. so-and-so," is condemned by the Code. Existing names of this kind, however, can easily be brought into line by adding a word such as Hybrids or Grex to the old, second part, cultivar-name, and omitting the "var." thus, Cattleya 'Fabia' var. 'Prince of Wales,' would become C. ('Fabia Grex') 'Prince of Wales' (Grex can he abbreviated to G. if desired). This alteration may seem over-pedantic, but if, in the naming of cultivated hybrids, a clear distinction is not kept between second and third part names, confusion, as I have pointed out, is likely to result.
I will finish this section on the naming of hybrids with one or two additional points on the correct method of writing their names. Here are the full names of three cultivated hybrids:—
Rubus (rusticanus inermis X thyrsiger) 'Merton Thornless.' Camellia X Williamsii 'Donation.' Rose (Hybrid Tea) 'Richmond.'
The following points should be noted:—
(a) If a formula or a vernacular designation is used as a second part name, it should be placed in brackets between the generic name and the cultivar-name.
(b) If a Latin name is used as a second part name, and the hybrid is between plants belonging to the same genus, a multiplication sign should be placed between it and the generic name.
(c) The third part cultivar-name follows directly on the second part name and is placed in single quotes, as for cultivar-names of non-hybrids.
In many contexts it would not be necessary to write the second part name at all, but if it is omitted, the cultivar-name, strictly speaking, should be preceded by a multiplication sign, thus: Camellia X 'Donation,' but it would be no great crime to omit it, except perhaps in technical publications.
3. What Is the "Correct" Name for a Cultivar?
It is a painfully familiar fact that many cultivars are known by more than one name, and that many cultivar-names have been applied to more than one cultivar—although the position is not so bad as it is in the case of botanical names! This multiplication of names is the inevitable result of many people naming many plants over a period of many years. It is a situation which we must accept and do our best to mitigate. The Code has a number of necessarily rather complicated provisions aiming at selecting the correct name for any cultivar. These provisions are important mainly to the comparatively few horticulturists and botanists who take on the unenviable job of sorting out the nomenclature of cultivated plants, though the results of their labours affect us all. The rules are set out fully in the Code, and here I will attempt only to pick out one or two of the more important.
The Code lays down two basic principles; though, as we shall see, these may be modified if undesirable name-changing can be avoided thereby.
(a) No name can be used if it does not conform to the various rules laid down in the Code (including proper publication of the name, with a description).
(b) If there are two or more names that conform with the Code, then the earliest name is the correct one; this is known technically as the principle of priority.
Now, obviously, as happens with botanical names, the strict application of priority might mean that a universally used name—say, Plum 'Victoria'—would have to be given up and replaced by a completely unknown one. This is unthinkable, and, as in the Botanical Code, there are clauses to prevent it happening. With cultivar-names, however, there is a particular complication, which does not apply to botanical names. The latter are all in Latin, whereas cultivar-names may be in many languages. This means that a cultivar, raised in one country under a name acceptable in that country, may be introduced into another country where the original name is quite unpronounceable or otherwise unsuitable. A new name is, of course, immediately invented by the introducer, and clearly, in many cases, it is useless to try to make the second country adopt the earlier, strictly correct, but unsuitable name. The Code, therefore, allows the retention of the second name as what it calls a "commercial synonym." Thus, Rose 'Permanent Wave' is a commercial synonym in the United States for the Rose raised in Holland as 'Mevrouw van Straaten van Nes.' In any formal list of Roses, both names should be given, together with any other commercial synonyms that may exist. The coining of commercial synonyms is not, of course, to be encouraged, and should only be done if the original name is clearly unsuitable for the new country. Frequently names are translated or transliterated when a cultivar is introduced into another country, and such a translation or transliteration is not regarded in the Code as a new name, but as the original name in another form; no difficulty, therefore, arises as to priority in these particular cases.
Perhaps the most important section of the whole Code deals with the Registration of cultivar-names. In certain groups (e.g. Daffodils) international registration schemes already exist, and it is urged that further schemes, covering all important groups of cultivated plants, should be established as soon as possible. The function of such authorities would consist, primarily, of (1) registering new names and ensuring that they are in accordance with the Code, and (2) preparing, and keeping up to date, lists of cultivars in their groups. In addition, the authorities would choose a particular publication as the "starting-point" of the nomenclature in the group (so as to avoid dipping too deeply into the past in search of ever earlier cultivar-names), and would act as arbiters when a decision has to be made between two or more widely used names for the same cultivar. There is no doubt in the minds of those responsible for the Code that the existence of internationally trusted and respected registration authorities would do more than anything else to stabilize and simplify the naming of cultivated plants. It will obviously take some time before authorities can be set up for all—or even the majority—of important groups, but the International Committee is doing its best to push ahead quickly with this very important side of their work.
At the end of the Code there are sections dealing with certain special categories such as re-selected and improved cultivars, con-varieties, clones, apomicts and line-hybrids, which are of interest mainly to specialists in breeding and taxonomic work on cultivated plants.
I hope I have said enough, in this short article, to convince readers of the JOURNAL that the Code is of some interest to them if they want to use the names of plants so that other gardeners, both here and abroad can understand what they mean. The next step is to read the Code itself—first the Summary and then the full text that follows it. No doubt many who do so will be put off at first by the somewhat legal language used. One can only repeat the time-honoured defence by lawyers when similarly attacked—that to avoid ambiguity experience has shown that a certain amount of jargon is necessary! We have tried hard, in the Code, to keep it to a minimum.
The International Committee is anxious to receive suggestions for
improving the Code, so that they can be discussed at the next
Horticultural Congress. All such suggestions should be sent to the
Secretary of the Committee (DR. H. R. FLETCHER), c/o The Royal
Horticultural Society, Vincent Square, London, S.W.1.
In the Historical Introduction to the Code (written by MR. W. T. STEARN, Secretary of the International Committee, during the production of the Code), Fellows of The Royal Horticultural Society will note, I trust with pride, the important part played by their Society, in cooperation with many other bodies and individuals in many parts of the world, in the preparation, drafting and publication of the Code. I hope that they will feel it their not unpleasant duty to make themselves and others familiar with the provisions of the Code, to follow its rules and recommendations when they use the names of cultivated plants, and to let the Secretary of the Committee know how they think it might be improved. Article I of the Code states that its aim is "to promote uniformity, accuracy and fixity … with the minimum disturbance of existing nomenclature"—an aim surely close to the heart of every Fellow of The Royal Horticultural Society.
I am grateful to MR. A. SIMMONDS, MR. W. T. STEARN AND MR. P. M. SYNGE for help in the preparation of this article.
[Illustration: Exhibit at the Harvest Show of the Massachusetts
Horticultural Society—Boston, Mass. October, 1953.]
Attendance Register, Rochester, N. Y., 1953
Ontario, Canada
L. K. Devitt, Toronto
Connecticut
Paul C. Daniels, Lakeville
Arthur H. Graves, Wallingford
District of Columbia
Beth Ford, Washington
Mr. & Mrs. E. L. Ford, Washington
Miss Gretta Wilson, Washington
Georgia
Lou Kahn, Albany
Mr. & Mrs. Wm. J. Wilson, Fort Valley
Illinois
Mr. & Ms. R. B. Best, Eldred
C. R. Blyth, Urbana
J. C. McDaniel, Urbana
Mr. & Mrs. Royal Oakes, Bluffs
Indiana
John Andrews, Marion
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Andrews, Marion
Mr. & Mrs. K. Dooley, Marion
Ray Kaufman, Peru
E. W. Pape, Marion
Carl Prell, South Bend
Ford Wallick, Peru
J. F. Wilkinson, Rockport
Iowa
Roy E. Ferguson, Center Point
E. F. Huen, Eldora
Ira M. Kyhl, Sabula
Wm. Rohrbacher, Iowa City
D. C. Snyder, Center Point
Maryland
Dr. & Mrs. H. L. Crane, Hyattsville
C. T. David, College Park
Dr. G. F. Gravatt, Beltsville
Dr. & Mrs. J. W. McKay & family, College Park
Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Negus, Hyattsville
Mrs. C. A. Reed, Takoma Park
Massachusetts
Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Kerr, Plymouth
Michigan
Mrs. Alpha Allen, Jackson
Howard Allen, Jackson
Gilbert Becker, Climax
W. M. Beckert, Jackson
R. M. Burr, Ann Arbor
F. J. Keplinger, Farwell
G. J. Korn, Kalamazoo
New Jersey
P. H. Cox, Bloomfield
New York
Mr. & Mrs. Victor Brook, Rochester
Ernest Brooks, Monroe
Wm. G. Brooks, Monroe
David Caldwell, Syracuse
Mrs. L. M. Caldwell, Canastota
Mrs. S. H. Graham, Ithaca
Prof. L. H. MacDaniels, Ithaca
Mr. & Mrs. George Salzer, Rochester
Rodman Salzer, Rochester
George Slate, Geneva
Jay L. Smith, Chester
Dr. Mary B. Spahr, Ithaca
North Carolina
W. J. Ellis, Advance
Ohio
George E. Craig, Dundas
Mr. & Mrs. John Davidson, Xenia
Barbara and Doris Dowell, Massillon
Dr. & Mrs. L. L. Dowell, Massillon
John A. Gerstenmaier, Massillon
Dr. & Mrs. Edward A. Grad, Cincinnati
Frank M. Kintzel, Cincinnati
Shumzo Kodera, Columbus & Tokyo, Japan
Mr. & Mrs. P. E. Machovina & Family, Columbus
Christ Pataky, Mansfield
Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Silvis, Massillon
Wm, C. Silvis, Massillon
Mr. & Mrs. A. W. Weaver, Toledo
Emmet Yoder, Smithville
Pennsylvania
R. P. Allaman, Harrisburg
Wm. S. Clarke, Jr., State College
Mrs. Helen Davis, Allentown
Mr. & Mrs. E. B. Miller, Hazelton
John Rick, Reading
Mr. & Mrs. Wm. S. Weaver, Macungie
Tennessee
Roy Chase, Knoxville
Spencer B. Chase, Knoxville
Virginia
Jesse O. Diller, Arlington
Mr. & Mrs. H. R. Gibbs & Family, Linden
Mr. & Mrs. H. F. Stoke, Roanoke
West Virginia
R. W. Pease, Morgantown
Wisconsin
L. W. Coulson, Slinger
Northern Nut Growers Association
Membership List
October 1, 1952, to September 30, 1953
*Life member
**Honorary member
Sec.Contributing member
+Sustaining member
ALABAMA
+Hiles, Edward L., Hiles Repair Shop, Loxley
Long, Pope M., Box 33, Cordova
ARKANSAS
Croley, Victor A., Route 4, Box 45, Green Forest
Crozier, O. N., Route 2, Searcy
Schlan, Mrs. Agnes, Route 2, Mountainburg
Sibley, Mrs. J. W., Sulphur Springs
Vaile, Joseph E., Dept. of Horticulture, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville
Wade, Clifton, Forest Ave., Fayetteville
Wylie, W. D., Dept. of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
BELGIUM
Vanderwaeren, R., Horticultural Adviser, Bierbeekstraat 217, Korbeek-Lo
CALIFORNIA
Andrew, Col. James W., Box 12, Hamilton, A. F. B.
Bridges, Mrs. H. G., R. F. D. No. 4, Box 60, Tulore
+Buck, E. H., 16 N. Portola, Three Arch Bay, South Laguna
Darling, Mrs. Leah, Wilsona Route, Box 313, Lancaster
Fowler, Floyd L., Route 2, Box 5636B, Redding
Fulcher, E. C., 5707 Fulcher Ave., North Hollywood
Gililland, Guy S., L. V. S. R. Box 342, Lucerne Valley
+Haig, Dr. Thomas R., 3021 Highland Drive, Route 2, Box 2357, Carlsbad
Jeffers, Chaplain Harold W., U. S. N. A. S., Los Alamitos, Long Beach
+Kemple, W. H., 216 W. Ralston St., Ontario
Pentler, Dr. C. F., 1322 Martin Ave., Palo Alto
Pozzi, P. H., 2875 S. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa
+Serr, Dr. E. F., Agricultural Experiment Station, Davis
Stewart, Douglas N., 633 F Street, Davis
Welby, Harry S., 500 Buchanan St., Taft
CANADA
Blyth, Donald, Blythwood Farm, Guelph, Ontario
Clarkson, A. G., R. R. 1, Islington, Ontario
Collens, Adam H., 42 Seaton St., Toronto 2, Ontario
Devitt, L. K., 409 Armadale Ave., Toronto, Ontario
English, H. A., Box 153, Duncan, British Columbia
Gellatly, J. U., Box 19, Westbank, British Columbia
Harrhy, Ivor H., Route 7, St. Thomas, Ontario
Henderson, George, R. R. No. 7, Guelph, Ontario
Holmes, B. T., 320 Deloraine Ave., Toronto, Ontario
Housser, Levi, Route 1, Beamsville, Ontario
Kimmerly, Fred A., R. R. No. 3, Cottam, Ontario
Kimmerly, Haven E., R. R. No. 2, Harrow, Ontario
+Lefevre, H. E., 354 St. Catharine St., East; Montreal 18, Quebec
Lossing, Elgin, Norwich, Ontario
*Neilson, Mrs. Ellen, 5 Macdonald Ave, Guelph, Ontario
Papple, Elton E., Route 1, Cainsville, Ontario
Porter, Gordon, R. R. No. 2, Harrow, Ontario
Sheppard, H. H., Box 46, Queenston, Ontario
Smith, Edward A., Box 6, Sparta, Ontario
+Snazelle, Robert, Forest Nursery, Route 5, Charlottetown, Prince Edward
Island
Trayling, E. J., 509 Richard St., Vancouver, British Columbia
Wagner, A. S., Delhi, Ontario
+Walker, J. W., McCarthy & McCarthy, 330 University Ave., Toronto 1,
Ontario
Wharton, H. W., Route 2, Guelph, Ontario
White, Peter, 30 Pear Ave., Toronto 5, Ontario
Willis, A. R., Route 1, Royal Oak, Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Young, A. L., Brooks, Alberta
COLORADO
Boyd, A., 1232 Clayton, Denver
+Forbes, J. E., Julesburg
Lieb, Mrs. Henry H., 3195 Gray St., Denver
McKinstry, Blair G., Julesburg
Morrison, Mrs. Doris E., Carr
Stoll, Harland, 3070 Pierce, Denver 14
CONNECTICUT
Ayling, Mrs. Charles L., Foothills, Washington
Bennett, George S., Southbury
Corcoran, H. F., The International Silver Co., 169 Colony St., Meriden
David, Alexander M., 480 S. Main St., West Hartford
Deming, Miss Charlotte, P. O. Box 403, Litchfield
Deming, Hawthorne, Hamilton Lane, Darien
**Deming, Dr. W. C, Litchfield
Frueh, Alfred J., Route 1, Sharon
+Graves, Dr. Arthur H., P. O. Box 129, Wallingford
Grebosky, Joseph L.'s Nursery, 50 Taylor Ave., South Norwalk 17
Hapgood, Miss Dorothy A., 745 Farmington Ave., West Hartford
Henry, David S., Blue Hills Farm, Route 2, Wallingford
Howe, Mrs. Paul, Umpawang Hill, R. F. D. No. 1, West Redding
*Huntington, A. M., Stanerigg Farms, Bethel
King, Mrs. Una, 57 Meadowbrook Road, West Hartford
Newcomer, Dr. Earl, Storrs
*Newmarker, Adolph, R. R. No. 1, Rockville
Nienstaedt, Dr. Hans, Conn. Agr., Expt. Station, P. O. Box 1106,
New Haven 4
Pratt, George D., Jr., Bridgewater
Schukoske, John A., Route 2, Box 257, Saybrook Road, Middletown
White, George E., R. R. No. 2, Andover
DELAWARE
Brugmann, Elmer W., 108C Thomas Drive, Monroe Park, Wilmington
Keller, Walt C., Rice Farms, Felton
+Logue, R. F., General Manager, Andelot, Inc., 2098 du Pont Building,
Wilmington
DENMARK
Butzow, O., 49 Bredgade, Copenhagen
Grandjean, Julio, Hillerod
Knuth, Count F. M., Knuthenborg, Bandholm
Reventlow, Johan Otto, Damgaard, Fredericia
Sorenson, Director K. Kaae, Dyrehavevej 22, Klampenborg
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
American Potash Institute, Inc., 1102 16th St., N. W., Washington
Curtis, Miss Diane, 1903 Kalorama Road, N. W., Washington
Ford, Edwin L., 3634 Austin St., S. E., Washington 20
+Hale, A. C., FOA-STEM to Thailand, c/o Dept. of State Mail Room,
Washington, D. C.
Reed, Mrs. Clarence A., 7309 Piney Branch Road, Washington 12
Woycik, Dr. Peter W., 1835 Eye St., N. W., Washington
ECUADOR
Daniels, The Honorable Paul C., American Ambassador, Quito
O'Rourke, Prof. F. L., Tropical Agr. Expt. Station, Pichilinque,
c/o U. S. Consul, Guaycil
ENGLAND
Wood, J. F., Moor Orchard, North Honiton, Devon
FLORIDA
+Avant, C. A., 960 N. W. Tenth Ave., Miami
+Estill, Miss Gertrude, 153 Navarre Drive, Miami Springs
+Holmes, Harry A., P. O. Box 323, Boca Raton
GEORGIA
Bixler, Dr. H. H., 134 Superior Ave., Decatur
Cannon, J. W., Jr., Box 388, Cordele
R. E. Funsten Co., Arthur O. Sandison, P. O. Box 1046, Albany
Gibbs, Robert I., 1007 Clifton Road, N. E., Atlanta 6
+Hardy, Max B., Leeland Farms, P. O. Box 128, Leesburg
Hunter, Dr. H. Reid, 561 Lakeshore Drive N. E., Atlanta
Kahn, Lou, P. O. Box 1046, Albany
Noland, S. C., Skyland Farms, Box 1747, Atlanta 1
Sasseville, Ezra, M., 605 Rhodes Building, Atlanta
Wallace, Clifford L., Route 1, Riverdale
Wilson, William J., North Anderson Ave., Fort Valley
HAWAII
Keaau Orchard, John F. Cross, Manager, Hilo
HONG KONG
Wang, P. W., China Prod. Trading Corp., 6 Des Voeux Road
IDAHO
+Bailey, Robert G., 332 Main St., Lewiston
Clarkson, Ernest V., R. F. D. No. 2, Jerome
Dryden, Lynn, Peck
Hazelbaker, Calvin, Rt. 2, Box 382, Lewiston
Horn, Anton S., 920 N. 20th St., Boise
Ingle, Jack, Mountain Home
Kindall, Mrs. Leslie L., Route 3, Boise
ILLINOIS
Allbright, R. D., Allbright Nurseries, 4287 Western Ave., Western Springs
Allen, Theodore R., R. R. No. 1, Delevan
Anderson, Ralph W., R. F. D. No. 3, Morris
+Anthony, A. B., Route No. 3, Sterling
Armel, Eli, R. F. D. No. 3, Mount Sterling
Baber, Adin, Kansas
Ballard, Thomas E., Rural Route, Carrollton
Barrow, J. M., P. O. Box 209, Urbana
Sec.Best, R. B., Columbiana Seed Co., Eldred
Best, Mrs. R. B., Columbiana Seed Co., Eldred
Best, Richard C., Eldred
Best, Robert L., Eldred
Best, Virgil, R. R. No. 4, Mattoon
Blaine, Homer H., 901 White Oak Road, Bloomington
+Blyth, Colin R., Mathematics Dept., University of Illinois, Urbana
*Boll, Herschel L., 2 Horticultural Field Laboratory, University of
Illinois, Urbana
Booth, Earl, R. F. D. No. 2, Carrollton
Borchsenius, Wayne L., R. F. D. No. 2, Sheridan
Brock, Arthur S., 1733 N. McVicker Ave., Chicago 39
Canterbury, C. E., Cantrall
Carlson, Dr. R. J., 320 Sherman Ave., Macomb
Carvel, Mayo, R. F. D. No. 1, Golconda
Chandler, S. C., 607 W. College St., Carbondale
Churchill, Woodford M., 4323 Oakenwald Ave., Chicago 15
Clark, Thomas F., Northern Regional Research Laboratory, Peoria
Colby, Dr. Arthur S., Department of Horticulture, University of Illinois,
Urbana
Corzine, Troy F., Dongola
Crabb, Richard, Box 306, Wheaton
+Dahlberg, Albert A., D. D. S., 5756 Harper Aw., Chicago 37.
+Daum, Philip A., 203 N. Sixth St., Carrollton
Deaner, Willard G., R. F. D. No. I, Mendota
Decker, Honas H., R. F. D., Rutland
Diener, Menno A., Route 2, Lovington
Dietrich, Ernest, Route No. 2, Dundas
Dintleman, L. F., State Street Road, Belleville
Dopheide, Henry A., 1331 Jackson St., Quincy
Eigsti, Dr. O. J., Funk Brothers Seed Co., Bloomington
Floreth, W. H., Carrollton
Fordtran, E. H., Route No. 3, Box 92, Palatine
Frey, Frank H., 2315 West 108th Place, Chicago 43
Frey, Mrs. Frank H., 2315 West 108th Place, Chicago 43
+Fuller, Owen H., 1005 Oneida St., Joliet
Gerardi, Louis, Route No. 1, Caseyville
Gettings, William A., R. R. No. 1, Eldred
Glidden, Nansen, West Lincoln Highway, De Kalb
Govaia, R. M., O. D. Room 19, Greer Block, Vandalia
Graham, George W., Rural Route, Carrollton
Grefe, Ben, Route No. 4, Box 22, Nashville
Griffith, Chris, West Filmore St., R. F. D., Vandalia
Hall, E. L., R. F. D. No. 1, Drew Ave., Hinsdale
Hall, William A., M. D., 217 Pacific Road, Forrestal Village, North
Chicago
Hazelwood, Everett, Hillview
Sec.Heberlein, Edwin W., Route No. 1, Box 72A, Roscoe
Helmle, Mrs. Herman C., 526 S. Grand Ave., W., Springfield
+Hockenyos, G. L., 213 E. Jefferson St., Springfield
Howard, Frank S., Rollins Road at Melrose, Route No. 1, Round Lake
Hoyle, Mrs. B. G., McNabb
Illyes, Dr. R. O., 1302 Lexington Ave., Lawrenceville
+Junck, Adolph E., Route No. 1, Jerseyville
Kammarmeyer, Glenn, 1711 E. 67th St., Chicago 49
+Kreider, Ralph, Jr., Route No. 1, Hammond
Krug, Carl B., Route No. 2, El Paso
Kruse, William, c/o Honey Lee Apiaries, Godfrey
Laatz, Mrs. Lenore, R. F. D. No. 3, Morris
Langdoc, Mrs. Mildred Jones, P. O. Box 136, Erie
Leighton, L. C., Arthur
+Marsh, Victor W., Aledo
Marsh, Mrs. W. V., Route No. 2, Aledo
Massey, Paul E., Box 202, Caseyville
McDaniel, J. C., 104 Horticultural Field Laboratory, University of
Illinois, Urbana
McDaniel, J. C., Jr., 1203 W. California Ave., Urbana
McKee, Mrs. Myrtice, Mount Morris
Mohr, Victor C., Route No. 1, Box 21, Dallas City
+Musgrave, Carl, 5200 S. Laflin St., Chicago 9
Newman, Roy, P. O. Box 51, Martinsviile
Sec.Oakes, Royal, Bluffs
+Opat, Joseph C., Opat Chinchilla Fur Ranch, R. R. No. 3, Hinsdale
Peers, Frank B., Box 321, Highland Park
Pierson, Stuart E., Carrollton
Pond, Merton, Bluffs
Raab, Irvin M., R. R. No. 4, Belleville
Reid, Robert J., 1137 Winona St., Chicago 40
+Reisch, Louis C., Route No. 4, Carrollton
Richie, Robert E., Carrollton
Robbins, W. J., 885 N. LaSalle St., Chicago 10
Schmisseur, L. R., Caseyville
Schubert, Kenneth, Route No. 1, Millstadt
Seng, Charles W. & Son, 920 Lafayette Ave., Box 247, Mattoon
Sokolowski, F. W., M. D. 2503 Donald Ave., Alton
+Sonnemann, W. F., Experimental Gardens, Vandalia
Sparks, Maurice E., 1508 Ash, Lawrenceville
Spencer, H. Dwight, 275 W. Decatur St., Decatur
Tucker, Lowell R., 607 W. Mill St., Carbondale
Twenhafel, Paul, Gorham
Ullrich, W. D., 108 W. McClure, Peoria 5
Vogt, William G., Greene County National Bank Bldg., Carrollton
Voiles, William, Eldred
Vortman, Elmer, Route No. 1, Bluffs
Wahle, Fred, Route No. 1, Fieldon
Whitford, A. M., Farina
Wright, William W., 101 Taylor St., Vandalia
Young, Mrs. Hugh E., Maple Springs Farm, R. F. D., Ashton
Zethmayr, Gordon, Route No. 1, Box 130, West Chicago
INDIANA
Andrew, John, Matter Park Road, Marion
+Andrew, Ralph, Matter Park Road, Marion
Aster Nut Products Co., Inc., George Oberman, Manager, 1004 Main St.,
Evansville 8
Babcock, Dan, R. R. No. 14, Box 342, Indianapolis 44
Barnhart, M. A., Delphi
Bauer, Paul J., 123 S. 29th St., Lafayette
Bird, E. C., 160 Federal Building, South Bend
Boller, G. Evert, Route No. 6, Box 101, Marion
Bolten, Fred, Route No. 3, Linton
Boyer, Clyde C., Nabb
Buchner, Dr. Doster, 533 W. Washington Boulevard, Fort Wayne 2
+Clark, C. M., C. M. Clark & Sons Nurseries, Route No. 2, Middletown
Cole, Charles W., Jr., Madison Road, Route No. 6, Box 112A, Marion
Cunningham, Earl E., 612 E. 4th St., Anderson
Deeg, E. E., R. R. No. 9, Koring Road, Evansville
Doeden, Johan, R. F. D. No. 4, Attica
+Dooley, Kenneth A., Route No. 2, Marion
Dougherty, Paul B., 4319 S. Harmon St., Marion
Eagles, A. E., The Eagles Orchards, Wolcottville
+Fateley, Nolan W., 26 Central Ave., Franklin
Glaser, Peter, Route No. 9, Box 328, Koering Road, Evansville
+Grater, A. E., Route No. 2, Shipshewana
Gross, Mrs. Margaret E., 808 Fenton Road, Marion
Harrell, Franklin M., Route No. 1, Griffith
Sec.Hirschman, J. Clifton, 4141 E. 62nd St., Indianapolis 20
Jasperson, Marion E., R. R. No. 5, Box 55, Indianapolis 3
Johnson, Raymond M., 8605 Manderiey Drive, Indianapolis
Kaufman, Ray, Route No. 4, Peru
Kem, Dr. Charles E., R. R. No. 3, Box 52, Richmond
Kenworthy, Owen, R. F. D. No. 3, Crown Point
Kestle, Margaret K., John Deere Store, Winamac
Kyburz, Benjamin E., Route No. 1, Idaville
La Rue, A. R., Box 147, Bloomington
Layman, J. C., R. F. D. No. 1, Peru
Lennon, Robert E., R. R. No. 1, Warren
Letsinger, J. E., 1202 Lower Huntington Road, Fort Wayne 6
Lukemeyer, Edwin J., 825 Line St., Evansville
Moldenhauer, Carl J., R. R. No. 7, Huntington
Neimeyer, Harry D., West Lebanon
Newman, Jesse D., Jr., R. R. No. 2, Culver
Oare, William T., 650 Associate Building, South Bend 1.
Palmer, Frank, Jr., 1011 Donmoyer, South Bend
+Pape, Edward W., Route No. 2, Marion
Sec.Prell, Carl F., 1414 E. Colfax Ave., South Bend 17
Randolph, Frederick F., Route No. 1, Edinburg
Reed, Frank, Route No. 1, Box 227, Daleville
Rehm, Walter T., R. R. No. 4, Logansport
Richards, E. E., 2912 York Road, South Bend
Risko, A., Tioga Orchards, Monticello
Rodenbeck, Miss Ruby, R. R. No. 2, Losantville
+Russell, A. M., Jr., 2721 Marine St., South Bend 14
Schram, Emil, Route No. 1, Peru
Schreiber, Ralph, 245 Cherry St., New Albany
Shafer, John, Jr., 3031 N. Roselawn Drive, Logansport
Shannon, Charles, R. F. D. No. 2, Box 324, Greenwood
Skinner, Dr. Charles H., Route No. 1, Thorntown
Sly, Miss Barbara, Route No. 3, Rockport
Sly, Donald R., Route No. 3, Rockport
Sly, Miss Lucinda Beth, Route No. 3, Rockport
Summers, Floyd, R. F. D., No. 2, Box 68, Winchester
Talbott, John E., R. F. D. No. 3, Linton
Sec.Wallick, Ford, Route No. 4, Peru
Ward, W. B., Horticulture Building, Purdue University, Lafayette
Welton, Forrest O., R. F. D. No. 1, Burns City
+Westerhouse, George F., East Ohio St., Monticello
Wichman, Robert P., Route No. 3, Washington
Wilkinson, J. F., Indiana Nut Nursery, Route No. 3, Rockport
Wittick, Eugene C., Route No. 4, Box 68A, Valparaiso
Wood, Darl F., 201 Miami Club Drive, Mishawaka
Woodward, Howard, Route No. 3, Syracuse
IOWA
Berhow, Seward, Berhow Nurseries, Huxley
Bird, C. A., Box 66, Odebolt
Boice, R. H., Route No. 1, Nashua
Cole, Edward P., 419 Chestnut St., Atlantic
Eads, Carroll, R. F. D., Miles
Eller, W. E., Eldora
Ferguson, Albert B., Center Point
+Ferris, Wayne, Hampton
Goettler, Fred, R. F. D. No. 1, Bellevue
Goodwin, William T., 1121 S. Riverside Drive, Iowa City
Gray, Kenny, Sabula
Greig, John E., Box 157, Estherville
Hoke, Russell O., Route No. 2, Anamosa
Huen, E. F., Eldora
+Inter-State Nurseries, Hamburg
+Kaser, Mrs. J. D., Winterset
Kern, Dr. W. R., 741 Rundell St., Iowa City
Kosek, Frank J., 87 Sixteenth Ave., S. W., Cedar Rapids
Kyhl, Ira M., Box 236, Sabula
Lysinger, Addison, Lamoni
+Martzahn, Frank A., Route No. 1, Davenport
McLeran, Harold F., Mount Pleasant
Meyer, Clemens, Route No. 1, West Union
Neprash, Bob, Nursery, Route No. 3, Cedar Rapids 5
Orr, J. Allen, 4000 West Fourth St., Sioux City 3
Rohrbacher, Dr. William, 811 E. College St., Iowa City
Schlagenbusch Brothers, Route No. 2, Fort Madison
Snyder, D. C., Center Point
Steffen, R. F., P. O. Box 1302, Sioux City 2
+Wade, Miss Ida May, Route No. 3, La Porte City
Welch, G. L., Mount Arbor Nurseries, Shenandoah
+White, Herbert L., Box 264, Woodbine
+White, Rev. L. P., Greeley
Williams, R. Alan, 1990 Eighth Ave., Marion
Williams, Wendell V., Route No. 1, Dansville
JAPAN
Deming, Olcott, U. S. Embassy, Tokyo
Yamato Seed & Implement Co., Tokyo
Yoshizaki, Chiaki, 17 Ichi Bancho Chiyodaku, Tokyo
(International Collaboration of Farmers Association)
KANSAS
Baker, Fred C., Troy
Borst, Frank E., 1704 Shawnee St., Leavenworth
Sec.Breidenthal, Willard J., Riverview State Bank, Box 296; 7th
and Central, Kansas City
Funk, M. D., 600 W. Paramore St., Topeka
Gray, Dr. Clyde, 1015 Central Ave., Horton
Harris, Ernest, Box 20, Wellsville
Jackson, Walter, Osage City
Leavenworth Nurseries, Carl Holman, Proprietor, Route No. 3, Leavenworth
Mondero, John, Lansing
+Pittser, L. R., Oswego
Stanley, G. E., 235 Ward Parkway, Kansas City
Starke, M. F., Hawthorne Place, Hiawatha
Thielenhaus, W. F., Route No. 1, Buffalo
Underwood, Jay, Riverside Nursery, Uniontown
+Wales, Max, 1534 Macvicar St., Topeka
KENTUCKY
Alves, Robert H., 302 Clay St., Henderson
Armstrong, W. D., Western Kentucky Experiment Station, Princeton
Collier, Leroy, 1514 Smallhouse Road, Bowling Green
R. E. Funsten Co., Robert Walker, P. O. Box 142, Henderson
Hopson, J. R., Route No. 2, Cadiz
Magill, W. W., Horticulture Department, University of Kentucky, Lexington
+Miller, Julien C., 220 Sycamore Drive, Paducah
Moss, Dr. C. A., Box 237, Williamsburg
+Rouse, Sterling, Route No. 1, Box 70, Florence
Siler, Robert W., Box 241, Williamsburg
Stone, Dr. Thomas, Mayfield
Taliaferro, Philip, Box 85, Erlanger
Tatum, W. G., Route No. 4, Lebanon
Usrey, Robert, Star Route, Mayfield
Widmer, Dr. Nelson D., Lebanon
Yost, John M., Pikeville