The Culton project emerged in response to the need for a better system for the growers at “grassroots level” and must in the short term be focused on the needs of that group. Along the way however, the work has encountered two major problems, and both involves interesting challenges:
- there seem to be no attempts to create a complete record of cultivars, breeds and strains.
- there is a need for some reforms within systematics and nomenclature for the domesticated organisms.
So what we build should also take into account a long-term ambition to make a contribution to, or at least be prepared for, such reform. This has created quite a few headaches, but it has forced into existence a pragmatic solution, which now provide a possible starting point to develop our first version.
Preliminary considerations
Since our ambition is to build an overview not only of crops of plants and fungi etc., but also include livestock and similar categories for microorganisms, we have the following on going discussions:
The meaning of the word culton
The consequence of choosing Culton as the “flag” for the entire project is that even though etymologically and mostly also in today’s systematics language it is primarily linked to plants (and Hetterscheid and van den Berg had plant systematics in mind when they introduced the term), we just have to “stretch” it to also include animals, microorganisms, etc. In the same way that taxon is a general term for all life forms in the wild, culton is thus a general term for all domesticated forms, not just plants.
The cultivar, breed and strain
The same reasoning could apply to the word cultivar. Etymologically speaking, it comes from “cultivating the soil/earth” and thus probably associates mostly with plants, but historically and in everyday speech the word has had so many uses that this no longer has to be given so much importance. We also have, within the use of biological resources, a well-established example of the word being used for cultivation, specifically fish and other marine animals: aquaculture. This could mean that cultivar could appy to all domesticated organisms, and that we need a name code accordingly, as the ICNCP uses the word as its basal term today. The same applies to the derived term cultivar group.
But it is considered premature to implement such a reform now. In zoology the terms are “breed” for animals and “strain” for microorganisms, and so we use those.
The crop, livestock and microorganism
We also would like a broader term than “crop” for that systematic category, since it is very plant related. The problem is that such a term doesn’t exist (and we have worked hard to try to find it). The result is that we need to use all of the following three terms in parallel, and assign each entry to its correct term:
- crop for cultivars of plants and fungi
- livestock for breeds of animals
- microorganisms for strains of bacteria
Introducing a new collective word for those three traditional concepts is premature. They are hard-coded into social practice to such an extent that if a more general term is needed, it must be introduced over time.
Taxonomy and cultonomy in parallel
What Bi-O is doing by organizing the Culton project upon the core ideas from the cultonomic theory of Hetterscheid and van den Berg is of course potentially controversial. Taken to the extreme this system demands a complete break with taxonomy, and for example no mention of Solanum lycopersicum L. in connection with Tomato (Beef tomato Group) ‘Brandywine’.
Bi-O, and now Culton X, consider this as far too minimalistic, at least in the short run, because people are so used to the taxonomic names. Many of us have notes and books and find info on the Internet that refers to taxonomic names, so if they are cut away completely, we risk that the system and the service will be perceived as too radically different and thus not be used.
We have therefore chosen to build a combined solution where we both introduce the new system and at the same time retain references to the old one, without compromising neither the new cultivar (or breed or strain) names according to Hetterscheid and van den Bergs recommendations, nor the presence of at least the most common scientific names. Taxonomy and cultonomy are running in parallel.
In other words, the cultonomic name and the most commonly used taxonomic name appear together, illustrated with a fictional tomato cultivar (top of the page).
The relevance field
And so we introduce a third element, that we may call a “relevance field”. The convenience here is that we can show how relevant or strong the association between the two systems is in each individual case. In many cases there is close connection, and for some there is some doubt, and for others the question is probably unsolvable or irrelevant. We have thought of several ways to show such a scale, for example with a color code that tells at a glance the degree of connection, or one based on symbols (which is the one we will use initially), or a combination.
With symbols:
[=] strong relevance
[-] some relevance
[~] doubtful relevance
With colors:
From that field we can link to more detailed information about the status, which will be part of the detail page for each cultivar (or breed or strain). This way we have a flexible system that can deal with a lot of different and often complex cases, which are difficult to handle with current tools, so that those who are interested can study the details beyond the first level of the user interphase.
All in all, we believe that this concept of a cultonomic public database provides the best of both approaches and may contribute to a better understanding in many camps of the differences between taxonomy and cultonomy.
With this system people can also start to get used to these new cultonomic names on the form crop/livestock/microorganism name (cultivar-group)’ Cultivar Name’, and slowly the many communities involved with cultivated organisms can make a smooth transition to this better and more stable systematics. Especially in the plant trade, this transition has already happened a long time ago, because it has been necessary to make the names understandable to customers.
Examples
The examples below show varying degrees of association. In the case of tomato, the crop name is the same as the taxon itself in English. This will sometimes be the case, but often not. We are working on a list of crop/livestock/microorganisms names where the main language is English and where we eventually want to find the right word in all languages, and we will just see how much overlap there will be in that respect.
The list here shows how entries may look like, and some of them are described in more detail below:
| Taxonomic name | Relevance | Cultonomic name |
| Allium angulosum L. | [ ~ ] | Norrlands onion ‘<name of place>’ |
| Allium cepa L. | [ = ] | Onion ‘Laskala’ |
| Cucumis sativus L. | [ = ] | Cucumber ‘Butchers/41 W.W.’ |
| Gallus gallus f. domesticus | [ – ] | Domesticated chicken ‘Bantam’ |
| Lactobacillus Beijerinck, 1901 | [~] | Yougurt bacteria ‘<a strain name>’ |
| Solanum lycopersicum L. | [ = ] | Tomato (Beef tomato group) ‘Brandywine’ |
| Solanum lycopersicum L. | [ = ] | Tomato ‘San Marzano’ |
| Solanum lycopersicum L. | [ = ] | Tomato (Cherry tomato group) ‘Black Cherry’ |
| Taraxacum pseudoroseum Schischk. | [ = ] | Pink dandelion ‘Dom. Malvik’ |
| Triticum aestivum L. | [ – ] | Wheat ‘Dala landhvete’ |
Example 1: Today we mostly write Solanum lycopersicum L. ‘San Marzano’ , and in our system we list it as:
| Taxonomic name | Relevance | Cultonomic name |
| Solanum lycopersicum L. | [ = ] | Tomato ‘San Marzano’ |
Example 2: Norrlandsløk is suggested described as Allium angulosum x nutans, but this is so far not an accepted scientific hybrid name (we have checked all major catalogues). If Allium angulosum x nutans should appear in GBIF as an accepted taxon with an author based on publication, we will of course link to this, but for the time being we must choose the nearest accepted taxon. We therefore write it:
| Taxonomic name | Relevance | Cultonomic name |
| Allium angulosum L. | [ ~ ] | Norrlands onion ‘<name of place>’ |
The suggested taxon, the history of the plant, the efforts made by Stephen Barstow and others to find out about the taxonomy, the literature etc. will be given as additional content on the detail page fo this entry in our system. Some of those are:
- Erik de Vahl: Norrlandslök – Nordlig raritet, mellansvensk torparväxt eller återfunnen skånsk spetsforskning?
- Stephen Barstow: En vandrende løk
- Stephen Barstow: På spor etter Norrlandsløk
Additional information
In addition to the info determined by the three categories in this cultonomy, we need to incorporate some other kinds of info. These we have so far identified as cultivar status, trait, usage, and regulation.
Cultivar status
This term is necessary in order to distinguish between cultivars according to their level of domestication, selection, breeding status etc.
| # | Cultivar status | Description of name rule | Example |
| 1 | Advanced cultivar | Commercial or otherwise published name. Cultivar from after appr. 1960 with more advanced breeding techniques | Onion ’Laskala’ |
| 2 | Primitive cultivar | Commercial or otherwise published name. Cultivar from before appr. 1960 | Tomato (Beef tomato Group) ’Brandywine’ |
| 3 | F1 hybrid cultivar | Commercial or otherwise published name | Tomato (Cherry tomato Group) ’Tomberry’ |
| 4 | Landrace | Geographic name and preferably “land” or any other similar word beginning with “land” in the language of origin | Wheat ’Dala landhvete’ |
| 5 | Breeding line | Minimum a number/code, could also include breeder/company/institution | Cucumber ‘Butchers/41 W.W.’ |
Relation to the MCPD standard
The work GBIF has done to facilitate for agronomic data in their system has to a large extent been based upon the Multi Crop Passport Descriptor (MCPD) standard. It is important to point out that this is developed to describe actual samples of material, mainly for exchange between gene banks, and not as a standard for generic crop description, which would be closer to the purpose and objectives of the CULTON project. However, there is of course an close link between the two tasks, and we should look closely to see what this means for this project. Our first Cultivar type list will probably be somewhere between the MCPD and the list above.
Usage
A plant or animal can have many different parts humans can use. Angelica (especilally Angelica archangelica) can for example be used for its leaves as a salad ingredience or dried for infusion, its stem as a vegetable fresh or cooked, its seeds for spicing liqour and its root for the same and for medicinal tincture. In the early prototype we introduced a system of main use categories so that each cultivar could be found in search within those.
In our next version, we will develop this further, but it must also be clear that this is not a systematic category like the crop/livestock/microorganism, cultivar-group or cultivar. It is just an extra tool for search and overviews, and much more pragmatic. Whereas this tool before was named “crop type” or “crop group”, this is now abandoned because it is too similar to the main systematic category. We therefore chose to use “Usage” this time, since the main focus of this is human use, which is our main “interface” in our relationship with domesticated nature: resource, product, raw material. So this list will be very close to the categories we have in our head walking through a food store:
- Fruit
- Nuts
- Legumes
- Leaf vegetables
- Berries
- Fish
- Meat
- Eggs
- Spices
- Etc.
But there are other kinds of uses too, for instance based upon the role an organisme has in an advanced ecosystems conscious production system, like the ones called “food forest” or “forest garden” or other kinds. Here the organism can be found in types like:
- Insect plant (attractor (with food) or repeller)
- Pollinator (insects able to pollinate plants, and often specialized to a few plants)
- Nitrogen fixer (all plants able to fix nitrogen from the air)
- Beneficial bacteria (for instance the bacteria living on roots doing the nitrogen fixing job)
- Ground cover (plants forming cover to protect bare soil quickly, effectively)
- Etc.
And there are use types focusing on construction material, clothing material, medicine material etc.
All these types of use are listed together in a separate list, and all entries can be assigned to one or more of them so that you can search crosswise and also use this knowledge to later build tools for planning and carrying out cultivation.
Trait
In addition to the three main “core” datasets, there is another equally important dataset describing all kinds of properties, especially the ones that vary within a crop/livestock/microorganism: the basis for why we treat them as cultivars (and breeds and strains) in the first place. To find and to structure these kinds of data for all the worlds domesticated organisms is an overwhelming task, and will be a main objective of the foundations activity.
Regulation
These data concern the legal systems governing intellectual property (breeders rights, maintainers rights etc), restrictions concerning imports/exports between geographic regions due to considerations regarding health, local biodiversity etc.
The needs of hobby growers/breeders/collectors
The Culton project has to a large extent been born out of the needs for better systems for home growers and their associations, and it is a precondition that the system is able to serve these needs. This is however not so easy, since many within this group are also eager to try out new things, including experimental amateur breeding, collecting landraces and even wild material, and trialing of exotic or less used species. This activity is not covered well by any existing nomenclature code.
The problem is that without clear naming rules, we get suggestions for entries with ambiguous names, and thus a lot of entries that really should not be in the Culton index at all, as that must follow certain minimum principles for what can be considered an accepted name, otherwise the index becomes full of imprecise information. The closest systematic name we should offer is the nearest accepted taxon, for instance species, but that is not completely satisfactory since this system is based upon a separation between taxonomy and cultonomy, and thus all domesticates must be assigned to at least a crop culton (like Apple, Cauliflower etc.). In such cases, the basic principle is to link to this relevant crop culton, and if it has not been developed yet, as a preliminary solution to use the nearest taxonomic genus name (Allium, Rosa, Brassica, etc.), which is already a widespread practice in cultonomics context.
Descriptive labels on material level assigned to crop/livestock/microorg. in Culton
NB! Since the material processed according to the rules above does not lead to entries directly in the Culton index, the consequence of this is that these rules in practice apply to entries in Culton X instead, which is Culton’s sister project for the inventory and exchange of physical material. This project is under construction and will appear on https://cultonx.net.
When the system is implemented we need to have in place the basic principles for handling such material.
Keep in mind that much material in use and circulation within this group of users is in fact within the scope of accepted names of the Culton project, that they are therefore accepted cultivars, and will be handled accordingly. What we are talking about here is material which cannot be said to represent accepted cultivars.
Suggested principles for this type of material:
NB! These principles are proposals in the early phase of the Culton project’s establishment and only part of a well-intentioned attempt to establish a better system. Exactly which designations, abbreviations and punctuation we end up with will be the result of a broad discussion. Feel free to come with your reflections!
- Naming of material that cannot be linked to an accepted cultivar is done at material level. The name is just a label written in a separate field that serves as a reference in inventory and within an organization the user is a member of and not elsewhere. The label does not have the status of a cultivar, breed or strain name!
- This means that the material is either connected to crop/animal product (i.e. on a more general level) or only directly to the nearest taxon (usually species) in the case of early domestication.
- If the material is the result of experimental breeding, the label is suggested to begin with “Exp.”, and the rest can e.g. be the surname of the user and a number, or whatever the grower/breeder wishes.
- If the material is the result of early domestication (taken in from the wild), the label is suggested to begin with “Dom.”, and the rest should be the location where this has happened, possibly with a number (if the process has been repeated for example on the basis of different source material). The reason why the place here is most relevant is that it is the adaptation of the wild material to a specific location that is of interest here, and not what causes this, i.e. in the same way as with land races.
- If the material is of unknown origin, unknown cultivar/breed/strain, because of loss of physical labels, maps or other documentation, it should not be registered at all to prevent reducing the value of the information and the material in circulation. If such material is showing great qualities however, and it is considered worth while bringing into circulation for others to propagate or use in own breeding experiments, it should be labeled according to rule # 3
- If material is proposed to be associated with an unaccepted taxon (i.e. a synonym or an expression that is also not found as a synonym), the nearest taxon up one level (typical genus) is used.
- If material is proposed to be associated with an unaccepted hybrid name, just one of the taxa it is composed of is used (and the rest of the suggestion is described on the detail page for the entry)
- NB! Proposals to enter new taxa into the taxonomic backbone of the Culton project directly is impossible. That is a matter of scientific publication in the publication Taxon or similar. When a new taxon is accepted after peer reviewed process in the bioscience community, it will be listed in the large taxonomic backbones, including GBIF, which is the one the Culton index is using.
- Material labels should not be written within single apostrophes, which is the established standard way of indicating cultivar names, thereby creating the false impression that they have the same status as accepted cultivar names. We suggest square brackets instead.
Example: Dandelions from Nepal
This is an interesting example of a species that is in early domestication in Norway, and this is because Stephen Barstow (see article on his website) has tried it out in his garden in Malvik and spread seeds from it through his network.
To create a cultivar name in Norwegian, we need to decide what the crop should be called, and we can for example use “Pink dandelion” (Not sure if an English vernacular species name has been established). Based on our system, the name data for this entry will be as follows:
| Taxonomic name | Relevance | Cultonomic name |
| Taraxacum pseudoroseum Schischk. | [ = ] | Pink dandelion [Dom. Malvik] |
Foraged and hunted material is not treated cultonomically
In the last instance, it should also be possible to describe organisms not yet being taken into cultivation, namely those which are gathered, hunted and fished, because this is material that may stand on the threshold of domestication and cultivation. However it will be out of question to treat these cultonomically, so they are only referred to by their taxonomic name and then the corresponding name in vernacular language.
Last Updated on 2023-11-21 by Karl Aakerro