Just Some additional information on this tree. As was pointed out in this thread, Golden Shadows is a trademark name. I believe the cultivar name is Cornus alternifolia 'Wstackman', PP11287 by Walter Stackman March 14, 2000. According to the patent information, this was discovered in West Chicago as a naturally occurring branch sport of the species. The two main distinguishing characteristics described are the unique and more stable variegation, and the vigorous habit - similar to the species (Claim is 18 feet in 10 years). This tree is supposedly listed by both cultivar and trademark names in the Broken Arrow Nursery Catalog. Could someone tell me the best and most complete method for listing a plant when both cultivar and trade names exist?
Gordo- Good question. First I would check the International Nomenclature Code. I am one of many people who work on a Nursery Catalog, we have spent a lot of time splitting hairs over this issue. I recall at one time we did check the nomeclature code but if we found the answer, it was not feasible for our purposes. TMI for less avid gardeners. In our Retail Nursery case it was agreed upon to use the trademarked name, as it is more "public" use. We then provide patent #'s or TM/Registered symbols as necessary, finally we list the cultivar name as a synonym. This practice seems to be often used in catalogs, more often wholesale I believe, though I have seen in wholesale the cultivar names listed first and trademarked names as synonyms. Sorry not to provide a hard-fast answer to your question. In my limited experience there isn't one, yet.
Trademark names are a difficult issue in plant nomenclature. In general, trademarks belong to a company not to a particular product (plant). Thus Advil (R) is a registered trademark but the product you buy is Advil Liquigels or Advil ibuprofen. So in your example, Golden Showers (TM) is a trademark name and could be used by the trademark owner for any plant he wished. The only name that applies only to a particular dogwood is Cornus alternifolia 'Wstackman'. Therefore if you are presenting information to the public it is imperative to use the true cultivar name, in this case Cornus alternifolia 'Wstackman'. If you wish to also use the trademark name be sure it is clear that it is NOT part of the plant name. An example given in the Code is Rosa 'Korlanum' which is marketed under at least 3 different trademark names. The only way to communicate clearly to the public is to use the true cultivar name.
Jacobson, NORTH AMERICAN LANDSCAPE TREES (Ten Speed, 1996): "I try to use the designation favored by the company that originated the variety in question, or that controls its propagation rights. If I have not seen the catalog of the originator, I use what seems to be the prevailing designation. Usage of trademarks can also vary from state to state. The rapidity with which such names are being changed is a source of confusion and a hotly disputed subject. Although this book includes every name (cultivar or trademark, registered or not) the descriptive account is placed after whichever name is thought to be the one most likely to be consulted first. Doubtless, some of the names given in this edition as cultivars will shortly become trademarked, and replaced by new cultivar names. This trend, ballooning since the early 1980s, is maddening but legal. Trademarked names last indefinitely, so a wholesale nursery, by making an obnoxious cultivar name and an attractive trademark name, gains financially: it can demand that other wholesalers or retailers pay a fee if they wish to use the trademark name for sales. The recent flood of trademark names has caught academics, the public, and many nurseries off guard. Several tree books published in the 1990s accidentally describe the exact same tree in two places--under its cultivar name and under its trademark name. It would be almost miraculous if the present volume doesn't have a few such cases also."
Thank you all for responding. Interestingly, I posted this prior to purchasing Capiello & Shadow's "Dogwoods", the introduction of which states "...one cannot patent a plant using a trademarked name. Thus, two names for the same plant as in Cornus alternifolia 'Wstackman' Golden Shadows TM. It is not much of a system, but it is the one we have and must use." It seems to me that the best system to use is that which: 1) Consistently follows generally accepted rules of nomenclature, 2) results in the least amount of confusion, and 3) is as complete as possible. I like the fact that Cappiello generally follows the order: Species - 'Cultivar' - Trademark Name, but there are exceptions (i.e. Cornus florida Red Pygmy (R) (D-383-22). We also have instances where the originator applies a trademark name prior to assigning a cultivar name (Cornus x rutgersensis Saturn TM) or perhaps even skips the cultivar name altogether. Regardless of the order, I applaud catalog editors who take the time and effort to make listings as complete as possible. From Jacobson "Understanding Scientific Names & Words" (2002) : "An author must examine and compare every applicable reference available, then judge what seems the best or proper name."
