Talk:Cultivar

Two different meanings

The two different meanings within the code of nomenclature seem to me to have too much emphasis, which is getting in the way of explaining what a cultivar is to those who don't know. I'd like to trim the lede to remove that discussion from that part of the page (leaving it below under "Formal definition"). As it stands I hesitate to do what I had intended, which was to list "cv." as an abbreviation, link to it from CV, and from Malus (the last of which needs some cleaning up about how it formats cultivar names, but that would require a clear definition of cultivar and cv.). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the opening paragraph explain in some detail exactly what a cultivar is? I'm not sure what you are alluding to when you speak of "two different meanings" - which paragraph contains this emphasis? Perhaps ypou have edited it already. By the way, a subtle point re the use of cv. is that it is no longer used in front of a cultivar name e.g. Populus nigra cv. 'Italica' is incorrect. However Populus cv. is fine.Granitethighs 21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't edited it. The main problem seems to me to be that the lede is so long and detailed. Do you have any suggestions about how to link "cv." with the CV page? I'll work on Malus, which is a mess due to confusion, apparently over whether all domesticated apples are one cultivar or many (definitely the latter). That may be something that this page could clarify if one had time to work on it. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivar group

Granitethighs, re: this revert and this note – I put the link back in, at least (important concepts like cultivar group should be linked at first occurrence). I don't agree with your capitalization of "Group" as a term itself; just because it is capitalized when used as part of scientific name, immediately after the group name, does not mean we would capitalize it outside of that context. It looks silly and it's simply grammatically wrong, like writing "I founded a software Company", mistaking the capitalization immediately after a company names (e.g. The New York Times Company) for a general requirement to always capitalize it. And decapitalizing it doesn't change the meaning, since "group" in the context of cultivars doesn't have some magically different meaning when the case is changed. I don't care if the article calls it a "group" or spells it out as "cultivar group". Our article is at "cultivar group", so if you want to change it, you'll need to take that up with editors at that article. Also, "grex" shouldn't be capitalized, either. In one place it was (I fixed it), while it wasn't otherwise. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: The essay WP:SSF explains why we should not attempt to impose on Wikipedia articles any weird stylistic ideas that fly in the face of basic English grammar, from journals and specifications and other insider specialist writing venues. This particular article is an unencyclopedically dense, geeky mess, as others have complained about, for a reason, and that essay gets right at the heart of it. No one cares if some botanists actually like to capitalize "group" for no reason even when it doesn't follow a group name, any more than we care that a lot of comic book collectors insist on incorrectly capitalizing things like "Near Mint Condition". Insisting on such things has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia and is "user-hateful". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again SMcCandlish you are correct about grex, as used in the ICNCP it has a lower case first letter and the use of a capital in the article was an error. The other matter is more tricky. We need to distinguish between the word group in common usage (as in "there was a group of flower pots on the porch" and the word Group as the the designation of a formal classification category like species or genus (but in the case of Group with a capital like a proper name). To add confusion, before the 2009 ICNCP the formal category now known as Group was termed the Cultivar-group (with hyphen) and that is why the article is so named - but this is no longer accurate and it needs updating but I don't know how to do that. All this presents immediate problems when people wish to refer to a cultivar group, as you apparently do, in a common usage sense or to use the word group in a similar way. It is simply more practical and less confusing to use the caps, otherwise there is always the uncertainty about the intentions of the person using the word. Put this another way - I appreciate your frustration but I have to work with these terms and, believe me, this is not a "weird stylistic idea" it is a practical approach operating to everyone's benefit. If you are still unconvinced perhaps you could isolate a case for discussion. Please first familiarise yourself with the latest 2009 ICNCP, it should be easy to access on-line.Granitethighs 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This article deliberately spoke clearly and unambiguously about the Group. In the interests of avoiding "weird stylistic ideas" you now suggest it includes the ideas of: 1. Group 2. group 3. cultivar group 4.Cultivar-group 5. cultivar Group. All of these are technically different entities. In a campaign for political correctness you sadly do not have the interests of the wikipedia reader at heart.Granitethighs 01:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

. And where do you see politics entering into this? I'm not running for office, campaigning for new legislation, calling for a revolution, or dipping my hand into the county coffers. If you have multiple and independent, reliable published sources that confirm your assertion that all five of those are different "entities", distinctly, reliably and consistently, then this article had certainly better cover that in enough detail that the average encyclopedia reader can understand the difference, because no one aside from the super-geekiest of horticultural nerds is ever going to understand it otherwise, and not only would I bet real money that various agri-horti-botanits would completely disagree about the details you are silently assuming, I say all this as someone with an entire bookshelf on horticulture, a whole roomful of epiphyllums, and a varied garden of plants that should not even be able to survive in my climate. Please take note that I am skeptical and critical of specialist snootiness and insider geekery that presumes too much and is dismissive and haughty toward those who will not play the secret insider knowledge game; I am not skeptical or critical of botanists or horticulturalists generally, or I'd have to doubt myself. Criticism of academic or technical omphaloskepsis does not require one to be a rube; it's difficult to accurately peg where nerds of a particular kind are dropping the ball without being one of them.

If there are provable and encyclopedically meaningful distinctions between all five terms, we have a duty to properly document them here at perhaps the only article on the system where it is appropriate to do so. I have the interest of no one but WP's general readership at heart, and wish that a large number of self-important "Sheldons" would get with the encyclopedic program or take their leave and get out of everyone else's way. A micro-distinction no one can document is a perceived distinction, not encyclopedic information, and Wikipedia is not here for people to make up their own individual interpretation of things. The baseline common sense assumption here is that English words in English prose mean what they mean to the average English speaker; if some special, arcane meaning is intended, this requires explanation one way or another, be it an article on the topic, or a link to a section in one, or some in situ prose drawing the necessary distinction, or whatever. I know you understand this already, so please stop playing games and address the issue raised. This isn't a fencing match. PS: In anticipation of one possible argument, I have to suggest that the idea that "group" means one thing but "Group" capitalized means the same thing but only as exactly defined by a book that happens to capitalize it is nonsense. There is rarely one single universal authority about anything, and that situation never lasts when it does occur. Whether any alleged authority or group of authorities assign a capital letter to something in their own publication has no bearing how applicable it is in the real world and whether it supersedes other, similar concepts. Every other specialist of every field in the world rebels against this basic reason, from acting teachers who insist upon the uppercasing of Method Acting to comic book collectors who feel, somehow, that labeling a graphic novel Near Mint imbues it with a special cache. It's all very silly bias, the notion that "what I do is magically more important and special than others, deserving a unique style that everyone else in the world must learn, know and respect". WP:MOS exists to stop that inanity, and does so plainly: "Do not capitalize for emphasis." — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you believe in never using 1 word when 3967 will do ... in an incomprehensible tirade. I suppose the obvious response is to reply in like fashion by telling you to stick your epiphyllums up your proverbial. But I wont do that. Instead I suggest you resolve your own mess by working with the last two ICNCPs to sort it all out. Geekman.Granitethighs 08:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually you just did reply in that fashion. If I wrote (as I am in fact writing now) "I could tell you 'Stop posting like a total WP:DICK' but I won't", that doesn't mean that I didn't just pointedly refer you to WP:DICK (and yes I realize that it's WP:DICKish to do so, but it's sometimes necessary to snap people out of their gamesmanship). Don't be passive-aggressive; just say what you mean and don't pretend you are saying something else.

I don't need to work out anything with ICNCP. You are simply failing completely to understand the argument I'm making, so I consider it to remain unchallenged on logical grounds. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Following WP:MOS

I've waited almost four months for a reasoned response to the capitalization abuse issue raised above, and not received one, so I'm going with what MOS says and clarifying the messy, confusing use and misuse of the term and capitalization of it in this article. I've changed it to not refer to anything but cultivar group by the word "group" herein, and to capitalize that term, per MOS:CAPS, only where the actual standard is to do so, i.e. when it is used in a name. If anyone has an issue with that, take it up at WT:MOS, because it's going to be about how this term is treated site-wide, not just in this article. Actually, I've done this already at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cultivar group capitalization, as more than two editors' input here would be helpful to arriving at a consensus. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's definitely a generic noun, so I don't see why it would be capitalized. Tdslk (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating confusion

As I stated before, the capitalized word Group has a very specific meaning ib Cultivated Plant taxonomy. You clearly do not understand this field of study where precision of word presentation and use is critical. In the interests of avoiding "weird stylistic ideas" you have suggested modifications that will result in the following botanical entities:

• 1. Group
• 2. group
• 3. cultivar group
• 4. Cultivar-group
• 5. cultivar Group.

Amazing though you might find this claim it is absolutely true. All of these are technically different entities. In a campaign for political correctness you sadly do not have the interests of the wikipedia reader at heart or the interests of plant science. The logic of this claim is absolutely clear - what is also perfectly clear is that you have no intention of listening to reason. As noted in the article the capitalisation of Group is specified in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants so you can check this out for yourself - click on the link. (Cultivated Plant Code Art. 3 Brickell 2009, pp. 10–12). Granitethighs 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So long as there are relatively few people interested in alternate translations of elite English jargon into standard English jargon, there will always be public displays and other publicly available and often intentional confusion spread to the innocent mind of a reader who genuinely respects the truth and therefore deserves to know it. That is a tragedy, and a trampling of a human beings most basic rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with differences in opinion and everything to do with actions that provide indisputable proof of animous thinking. Which does not align with un-animous beings and un-animous rights and pretty much signifies that the spiritual house one will reside in for the majority of lives is animal, that long term un-animous housing is not feasable - Dirtclustit (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant!Granitethighs 06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Two Meanings

Can someone explain in plain English what the difference is between the two definitions? --Bod (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I can try, but I don't know what two definitions you are referring to. "Cultivar" is a technical term in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, and has one definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Cultivated Plant Code notes that the word cultivar is used in two different senses: first, as a "classification category" the cultivar is defined [...] as follows: The basic category of cultivated plants whose nomenclature is governed by this Code is the cultivar.[16] [...] The Code then defines a cultivar as a "taxonomic unit within the classification category of cultivar". --Bod (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right, I see. It's the same with many other words that can mean either the rank or category itself (compare "he was promoted to corporal", where "corporal" = "the rank of corporal"; "she was elected president", where "president" = "the office of president") or an actual instance of the rank or category (compare "a corporal entered the room", where "corporal" = "a person holding the rank of corporal"; "I saw the president in the lobby", where "president" = "the person holding the office of president"). So "cultivar" can be used both to mean the category and an instance of that category. It's a subtle but sometimes important distinction: the first use is abstract, the second concrete. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: once, at least in the UK, we used capitals in text to make such distinctions, writing "the office of president" and "the President entered the room". Unfortunately, in my view, this useful convention has increasingly been abandoned elsewhere and is banned in the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. If that is correct, then I now understand the different "senses" of the word. That is why it says "is a plant or grouping of plants"... I may try to clarify this in the article. --Bod (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that cultivar can refer to an individual plant... Under "taxonomic unit", which I still don't know the meaning of... It says this sense is most often used:

A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform and stable in those characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characters.[1]

--Bod (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an individual plant I agree; an instance of the category of cultivar is that group of plants that constitute one particular cultivar. So, on reflection, my examples where the instance is one individual person aren't the best. Perhaps "committee" works: sometimes it has a 'status' meaning as in "They got together and formed a committee" or "I don't believe in rule by committee"; sometimes it has an 'instance' meaning as in "The committee is ruining this organization".

"Taxonomic unit" here just seems to be a general term for 'ranks' such as "cultivar", "cultivar group", "species", "genus", "family", etc. – these are all "taxonomic units".

All the nomenclature codes, ICZN, ICN, ICNCP, etc., are very difficult to write about, in my experience, because over the years they've been written in more-and-more dense legalistic language understood only by the experts who write them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If it is not an individual plant, then I will change the lede. --Bod (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/courses/HORT217/Nomenclature/description.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306203301/http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html to http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. 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/20141126034200/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. 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/20051015035630/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultivar. 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/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cultivating the lead

Which of the following passages, as the beginning of the introduction to this article, is more readily understood by a general, non-specialized reader?

From Wikipedia:

"A cultivar[nb 1] (cultivated variety) is an assemblage of plants selected for desirable characteristics that are maintained during propagation. More generally, a cultivar is the most basic classification category of cultivated plants in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Most cultivars arise in cultivation, but some are from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics."

From Study.com:

"Cultivars are, simply put, types of plants that have been cultivated and bred by humans. Cultivars are created when people take species of plants and breed them for specific traits, such as taste, color, or resistance to pests. The plant is bred purposefully until the desired trait becomes very strong and noticeable."

(https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-cultivar-definition-types.html)

It's no contest in my opinion: the Study.com text is far more easily understood by anyone who is not already familiar with the term cultivar and botany in general. I plan to rework the opening sentences using the Study.com text as a guide in achieving the goal for the introduction to this, or any article: to be instantly comprehensible to non-specialized people, who form the majority of this site's readership. Comments invited. DonFB (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DonFB: I agree that the text could be simplified, but without the reference to the ICNCP, the Study.com text is simply inaccurate. It does not distinguish a "cultivar" from a cultivar group, a grex or a landrace. Its definition is actually of a cultigen, not a cultivar. As the text below says "all cultivars are cultigens, because they are cultivated, but not all cultigens are cultivars, because some cultigens have not been formally distinguished and named as cultivars." A cultivar is a distinguished and formally named cultigen that meets the requirements for naming under the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am primarily interested in making the first two or three sentences an easily comprehensible explanation. That's why I quoted only the first few sentences from each place. I'm not opposed to including the ICNCP definition in the introductory section, but it can be shown after the first two or three sentences tell readers in clear and plain language that cultivars are plants bred by people to have desired traits. A phrase in the very first sentence like, "characteristics that are maintained during propagation" is all but incomprehensible to a general reader. That kind of multi-syllabic jargon belongs in a textbook; it is not appropriate for the beginning of a Wikipedia article. I'm not campaigning for the Study.com article in its entirety (I can't see all of it anyway, not being a subscriber), but the few sentences I quoted offer a good guide for a clear-language start to ours. I will offer suggested revised wording in a subsequent post. DonFB (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DonFB: this is an encyclopedia, so there's absolutely no reason not to use words like "characteristics" and "propagation". However, by all means simplify, so long as the opening clearly explains that a "cultivar" is a subcategory of "plants bred by people to have desired traits" (which are cultigens), namely those with stable characteristics that have been formally described and named under the ICNCP. Anything else is simply wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My proposal to revise the opening paragraph (footnote also modified):

"A cultivar is a set of plants that people breed for desired traits, which are reproduced by a method such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Most cultivars arise from purposeful human manipulation, but some originate from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics. A cultivar is the most basic classification category of cultivated plants in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Horticulturists generally believe the word cultivar was coined as a term which means "cultivated variety"."

DonFB (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@DonFB: well, I would prefer to add ", and which has been formally described and named" before the end of the first sentence to distinguish a cultivar from a cultigen. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's include the phrase in the ICNCP sentence (third in the paragraph), rather than overloading the opening sentence:

"Cultivars are formally described and named in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), in which they are the most basic classification category."

I'm pretty sure readers will not stampede the site with complaints that the first sentence fails to indicate a difference between cultivar and cultigen, since that arcane distinction is unlikely to be known to any typical general reader. If both terms were actually used in the opening sentence, it would require an explanation or a link to enable a general reader to comprehend the meaning, defeating the whole purpose of simplifying the lead sentence, so that its meaning is understandable on sight.

I want to modify my proposed first sentence, like so:

"A cultivar is a set of plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production."

I'm copying my modified nb1 footnote here, since it does not seem to show up otherwise:

Cultivar (English: /ˈkʌltɪˌvɑːr, -ˌvɛər/) has two meanings, as explained in Formal definition: it is a classification category and a taxonomic unit within the category. When referring to a taxon, the word does not apply to an individual plant but to all plants that share the unique characteristics that define the cultivar.

DonFB (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@DonFB: I'm sorry, but I still think it's wrong. If you start a sentence with "A cultivar is ...", the implication is that the sentence is a definition, and on this basis, it's wrong. You could say something like "A cultivar is a subset of those plants" followed by your words, but to say that it's "a set of plants" qualified by your words is simply not a correct definition. It's a subset of "set of plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production". A subsequent sentence can then clarify which subset is meant. An encyclopedia must be accurate as well as accessible.

Another approach would be to say something like "A cultivar is a kind of cultigen. Cultigens are plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Cultivars are cultigens that have been formally described and named under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP)." Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "set", other possible expressions could be "collection" or "type of". Does your objection hinge entirely upon use of the word "set"? The quibble is whether the very first sentence must establish that cultivar is a subcategory. However, even the existing opening sentence does not make that distinction. Here is a revised proposal:

"A cultivar is a type of plant that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by a method such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Most cultivars arise from purposeful human manipulation, but some originate from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics. Cultivar names are chosen according to rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), and not all cultivated plants qualify as cultivars. Horticulturists generally believe the word cultivar was coined as a term which means "cultivated variety"."

The term "cultigen" is introduced in the third paragraph; let's leave it there. The first paragraph, and certainly the first sentence, do not need the addition of yet another unfamiliar word in order to express a simple and basic idea: cultivation of plants for desirable traits. DonFB (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

is there anything below cultivar?

Hello, I am asking if is there a taxonomic rank below cultivar? like subcultivar? if there are more then one please tell me! also below cultivar is there format? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but the article Cultivated plant taxonomy refers to categories or ranks named "Group" and "grex" which may or may not be instances of what you call "subcultivar". Blanchette (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Group = cultivar group is a rank above cultivar. Grex is also a rank above cultivar, used only for orchids; it refers to all cultivars derived from a cross between particular parents. There are no ranks below cultivar, because it refers to one unique cultivated variety. Similar cultivars can be placed in a Group. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)