Talk:International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

message: Since the article of List of rice varieties cann't tell which variety is natural and which one is cultivated, so the link will not be removed until the List of rice cultivars is generated.--222.67.212.58 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is considerably more complicated than that. However, I don't really see what connection these lists have to this topic, at all. - CubicFeet (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultivars vs varieties..... 

message: :From this passage
:The ICNCP operates within the framework of the which regulates formal names for plants in general. On the other hand, orchids have a Code of their own that operates within the limits set by the ICNCP.
:it seems that the ICNCP conforms to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.  And that the “Code of Orchids” conforms to the ICNCP.  If true then the “Code of Orchids” strikes me as closer than another hand to the ICNCP.  More like a finger on the same hand.  
# Can you rephrase the passage?  Without the finger analogy of course.
# What is the right name for the “Code of Orchids”?  What is the reference for it?
# Is it only for orchids that there is a code that the ICNCP?
# Orchids are a family.  But could a genus have a further refined code?  Could an order have a further refined code?  What is the right name for a generic “group of botanical types” that might have its own code?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.99.109 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Botanical Code applies to "all organisms treated as plants": the Cultivated Plant Code applies to "all organisms treated as plants and whose origin or selection is primarily due to human activity". Orchids have always been a difficult case because of their complex breeding histories, the exactitude of the numerous orchid enthusiasts, and the fact that orchids seem to be in some way a special case. Nevertheless, the 2009 CPC includes the grex as a new classification category (a category that applies to orchids alone) and I think that this probably overcomes any long-standing differences between the CPC and the orchid community. As the 2009 CPC is only just published and the grex only just acknowledged it would seem that any "independent" orchid code is now redundant. However, orchidists may have a different view. In principle the CPC is the final authority. You might want to get a view on the latest CPC from the orchid community? Granitethighs 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code of Orchids 

message: I just noticed that the citation for the ICNCP didn't give the url for the online version; just in case any editors weren't aware that it's online, I thought I'd leave a note here. See International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants#Bibliography for a revised citation which does give the url. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just an excerpt. They are careful to keep it behind a paywall, which is at odds with the ambition to encourage use of the code. It is a stupid policy and it is unfortunate that the ISHS don't see that. By the way: they are in the process for a new edition right now. Aakerro (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The message you replied to was twelve years old, but I checked in the bibliography and someone had in fact mistakenly used the URL for an excerpt instead of the full document. I've corrected the reference now, you can see the full document there (or here). Averixus (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ICNCP online

message: The ICNCP says that trade designations "must [my emphasis] always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets." It uses small capitals to do this, although this is not mandated. There was a very long discussion at Wikitalk:Plants here and here  as to how to make the distinction in Wikipedia. The discussion didn't really reach a consensus, other than a strong feeling against either small capitals (as per the Code) or fixed-space font. So within Wikipedia we don't use either Rosa  or Rosa Iceberg. The template  produces a different font-family, unlikely to be used by anyone for normal text, although this can't be guaranteed since users can change their default font. This gives Rosa . This style can't be said to have consensus, but seemed to be more acceptable than the other two.
In the absence of a consensus on presentation, it's important that the text makes it clear when a name is not a cultivar name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade designations in Wikipedia 

message: The examples should include higher levels in the nomenclature.  
Also, the interpretation/status of "strain" should be stated. 
—DIV (120.17.115.15 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher and lower levels