Talk:Cultigen

Examples given

Currently the only example given is saliva divinorum, and its article states "It is thought to be a cultigen." (with reference to: Marushia, Robin (2002), "Salvia divinorum: The Botany, Ethnobotany, Biochemistry and Future of a Mexican Mint", Ethnobotany).

This seems to imply that it is not widely accepted to be cultigenic. My opinion is that this article deserves existence, but at present for examples it offers none conclusive and just one speculative. I'd like to see that changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.9.41 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The only example of a cultigen is psychoactive.

The only example in this article of a cultigen is Salvia divinorum, which is the source of a powerful hallucinogen. If such drugs are to be mentioned, the article should explain how cultigens are involved in drug subcultures. Are there any cultigens that do not have the same drug-related connotations in Internet lore as Salvia divinorum? If so, they should be included in this article, so that readers do not think that the word "cultigen" refers only to varieties which both produce psychoactive effects and have an unknown providence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.180 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Corn

I wish I could remember the source. It was probably the History Channel. They said that corn has been cultivated and domesticated since before recorded history, and farmed corn is very distant from anything that could or does grow wild. That seems like a better example of a cultigen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.31.12 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-written

I have re-written the entry below so as to take account of the origin of the word cultigen and include various aspects of the debate concerning the history and usage of the word. It is a re-write of a small entry that did not discuss any of these matters. Roger D Spencer (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[comment moved from top of page] --Melburnian (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

natural and artificial slection

The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species: that is what cultigens are all about. There is no claim here that artificial selection is not part of the overall selection process or that humans are not part of nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitethighs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I have amended the "critique" section to clarify this issue. Granitethighs (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

binomials

The idea that the only name that cultigens may have under the ICBN is in the form of a binomial is a really weird one. So is the idea that it would not be perfectly in order to give a cultigen a name under the ICBN now or at any time in the future: it is done all the time. The world is bigger than just the ICNCP. - CubicFeet (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph is misrepresenting the facts, imagining a conflict that does not exist

The second paragraph:

full text, without all the markup

Cultigens may be named in any of a number of ways. The traditional method of scientific naming is under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and many of the most important cultigens, like maize (Zea mays) and banana (Musa acuminata), are so named. Although it is perfectly in order to give a cultigen a botanical name, in any rank desired, now or at any other time, these days it is more common for cultigens to be given names in accordance with the principles, rules and recommendations laid down in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) which provides for the names of cultigens in three classification categories, the cultivar, the Group (formerly cultivar-group), and the grex. From that viewpoint it may be said that there is a separate discipline of cultivated plant taxonomy, which forms one of the ways to look at cultigens. The ICNCP does not recognize the use of trade designations and other marketing devices as scientifically acceptable names, but does provide advice on how they should be presented.

is engaging in WP:OR that is extremely misleading, and fully of novel analysis and synthesis. It looks sourced, but it is sourced only as to details like what botanical name binomials consist of, and what the ICNCP cultigen categorization are (and it missed some, like the graft chimera). The entire scenario it portrays, of two competing nomenclature systems, is made-up nonsense. the ICN simply only defines the binomial (technically, it can go into some lower taxa, but rarely does so, and combinations like nothospecies), and does not concern itself with finer classification of domesticates; the ICNCP adds the latter fine-grained detail. The complete taxonomic name of a cultivar (or whatever) is a combination, the ICN binomial, followed by the ICNCP lower taxa, in a specific order: ''Malus domestica'' 'Golden Delicious'</code>, rendered as: Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'. It would be preferable if a botanist rewrote this section, so I'll leave it alone a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that presents it as a "conflict", but it does need reworking. The important point is that botanists were giving cultigens binomials before the ICNCP ever existed (and afterward to some extent as well). Bailey coined the term cultigen in 1918, but the ICNCP didn't exist until 1952, and Bailey gave tons of cultigens binomial names. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultigen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116021210/http://www.ishs.org/icra/index.htm to http://www.ishs.org/icra/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Organisms other than plants

Does this term and concept not also apply to animals, and come to that to fungi and other organisms too? If not, what term do we use for those? A few example taxa off the top of my head:

• Silk moth, Bombyx mori
• Barbary dove, Streptopelia risoria
• Dog, Canis (lupus) familiaris
• Goldfish, Carassius aureus
• Lager yeast, Saccharomyces pastorianus
• Domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus
• Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens
• Cultivated mushroom, Agaricus bisporus

Richard New Forest (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)