Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
Some taxonomists recognize a BBB genome group, but its existence has not been conclusively
demonstrated. Tetraploid cultivars are mostly hybrids produced by breeders.
Genome groups are further divided into subgroups usually dened as a set of cultivars derived from
each other through somatic mutations. On the basis of this system, cultivar names are put between
inverted commas and preceded by the name of the genus and when known, the name of the group
and subgroup. For example: Musa (AAA group Cavendish subgroup) 'Robusta'[2].
Scoring system
The system is based on 15 characters that were chosen because they are dierent in Musa
acuminata and Musa balbisiana[1]. Each character is scored on a scale from one (typical Musa
Page 1 / 4
acuminata) to ve (typical Musa balbisiana). The possible total scores range from a minimum of 15
to a maximum of 75. The expected scores are 15 for AA and AAA, 35 for AAB, 45 for AB, 55 for ABB
and 75 for BB.
Photos courtesy of Angela Kepler
Charact
Musa acuminata Musa balbisiana
er
Pseudos
tem More or less heavily marked with Blotches very slight or absent
colour
brown or black blotches
Petiole
canal Margin erect or spreading, with
Margin inclosed, not winged but
scarious wings below, not clasping
clasping pseudostem
pseudostem
Peduncl
e Usually downy or hairy Glabrous
Pedicels
Short Long
Ovules
Two regular rows in each loculus Four irregular rows in each loculus
Bract
shoulder Usually high (ratio<0.28) Usually low (ratio>0.30)
*
Bract
curling Bracts reex and roll back after
Bracts do not reex
opening
Bract
shape Lanceolate or narrowly ovate,
Broadly ovate, not tapering sharply
tapering sharply from the shoulder
Bract
apex Acute Obtuse
Page 2 / 4
Free
tepal of
Variably corrugated below tip Rarely corrugated
male
ower
Male
ower Creamy white Variably ushed with pink
colour
Stigma
colour Orange or rich yellow Cream, pale yellow or pale pink
*x/y
It is Ernest Cheesman who noticed that the model for Musa paradisiaca was in fact a type of
Plantain. When it was later realised that Musa paradisiaca and Musa sapientum a Silk type that
Linnaeus had also added to the genus were hybrids between Musa acuminata and Musa
balbisiana, some authors began to use the form Musa x paradisiaca and Musa x sapientum to
emphasise that fact.
Over the years several authors based the taxonomy of bananas on Musa paradisiaca and Musa
sapientum. Sometimes Musa sapientum was treated as a subspecies of Musa paradisiaca, but at
other times botanical priority was ignored and Musa paradisiaca was treated as a subspecies of
Musa sapientum. Moreover, since Musa paradisiaca is seedless, the subspecies seminifera was
created in order to accommodate the wild seeded forms. Giving a seed-bearing wild species the
status of subspecies to a seedless cultivar is a good example of the stultifying eect formal
nomenclature has had on the crop's taxonomy.
Indeed, as Cheesman noted in 1948, "Some botanists have regarded the seedless forms as ranking
with the fertile species and have bestowed Latin binomials upon them. Others have preferred to
regard them as varieties of one mythical species (usually called Musa sapientum) which is
supposed to exist somewhere in the wild and fertile condition Such mistakes... are not peculiar to
the genus Musa, but they are unusually conspicuous in this group"[3].
It was eventually recognised that most cultivars (except for certain types such as the Fei bananas)
are derived from either Musa acuminata alone or hybridized with Musa balbisiana. Some of these
cultivars are, like their wild relatives, diploids, i.e. they have two sets of chromosomes (one
inherited from each parent). The majority, however, are triploids, i.e they have three sets. This
Page 3 / 4
means that at one point, the reproductive cells of one of the parents did not undergo the normal
halving of its genome and produced unreduced gametes. The other parent contributed a normal
haploid genome.
This complexity made it dicult to devise a Latin name-based taxonomy that could cope with all
possible permutations. As Cheesman noted, "the classication of the cultivated varieties is almost a
separate problem from the general taxonomy of the genus, needing a dierent technique for its
[4]
solution, and confusion of the two makes both almost impossible" . He realised that the use of
Latin names for cultivars would have to be abandoned. The challenge of coming up with an
alternative was taken up by two of his young colleagues, Norman Simmonds and Kenneth
Shepherd[1].
References
1. Simmonds, N.W. and Shepherd, K. 1955. The taxonomy and origins of the cultivated bananas. Journal of the
Linnean Society of London. Botany 55:302-312.
2. Page 95 in Stover, R.H. and Simmonds, N.W. 1987. Bananas. 3 ed., Tropical Agricultural Series. Longman,
New York, USA. 468 Pp.
3. Cheesman, E.E. 1947. Classication of the bananas. I. The genus Ensete Horan and the genus Musa L. Kew
Bulletin(2):97-117.
4. Cheesman, E.E. 1948. Classication of the bananas. III. Critical notes on species: M. paradisiaca L. and M.
sapientum L.. Kew Bulletin(2):145-157.
Further reading
David Constantines annotated list of Musa species
Perrier, X. et al. 2011. Multidisciplinary perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108(28).
Contributors to this page: Anne Vzina .
Page last modied on Thursday, 06 April 2017 13:54:59 CEST by Anne Vzina.
The original document is available at
http://www.promusa.org/Nomenclature+of+cultivated+bananas
Page 4 / 4