Botany and national identities: The Tokyo Cherry (with Supplementary material)

Abstract

Argument:
When Japan faced the world after the collapse of its feudal system, it had to invent its own modern identity in which the Tokyo Cherry became the National Flower. Despite being a garden plant, it received a Latin scientific species name as if it was an endemic species. After Japan’s colonial conquest of Korea, exploring the flora of the peninsula became part of imperial knowledge practices of Japan. In the wild, a different cherry was discovered in Korea that was proposed as the endemic parent of the Tokyo Cherry, supporting imperialist policies. Following Japan’s defeat after the Pacific War, South Korea in turn entered its search for cultural identity. The supposed parent of the Tokyo Cherry was now successfully acclaimed as the parent species of the colonial oppressor’s Tokyo Cherry and named the King Cherry. Such scientific practice into cherries smoothly intertwined with nationalism and its legacy continues to interfere with research today.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Botany and national identities: The Tokyo Cherry
Wybe Kuitert
Research Center for Japanese Garden Art and Historical Heritage, Kyoto University of the Arts, Japan (chief researcher) and
Seoul National University, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, South Korea (tenured professor, retired)
Email: goedemorgen@snu.ac.kr
Argument
When Japan faced the world after the collapse of its feudal system, it had to invent its own modern identity
in which the Tokyo Cherry became the National Flower. Despite being a garden plant, it received a Latin
scientific species name as if it was an endemic species. After Japan’s colonial conquest of Korea, exploring
the flora of the peninsula became part of imperial knowledge practices of Japan. In the wild, a different
cherry was discovered in Korea that was proposed as the endemic parent of the Tokyo Cherry, supporting
imperialist policies. Following Japan’s defeat after the Pacific War, South Korea in turn entered its search
for cultural identity. The supposed parent of the Tokyo Cherry was now successfully acclaimed as the
parent species of the colonial oppressor’s Tokyo Cherry and named the King Cherry. Such scientific
practice into cherries smoothly intertwined with nationalism and its legacy continues to interfere with
research today.
Keywords: Imperial Biopower; impure scientific standards; King Cherry; Mount Halla; ‘Someiyoshino’; Wangbeonnamu
Introduction: From nation and imperialism to nationalism
Gardeners and herbalists have been searching for useful, vegetal resources since time immemorial.
As civilization advanced, plantsmen started working in service of society, state, or King. When
plant hunting effectively came under an umbrella of science, plant names became fixed data
managed on dried herbarium sheets or with illustrations. Carl Linnaeus’(1707–1778) binominal
nomenclature standardized the naming of plants worldwide, but separated a plant name from its
local variation, soil, climate, and practical meaning. This separation essentially secluded cultivated
plants that were of a lower order. Linnaeus himself, when exploring wild species found in
undisturbed nature, was proud to advertise the patriotism that motivated the survey of all his
fatherland’s plant resources (Svenska 1986, 476). When a fatherland becomes a nation and nations
start to compete, patriotism becomes nationalism or imperialism, in which colonial empires must
be defended and defined. As a practical tool in imperialist science, botany and its Linnaean
nomenclature gained a wide importance, as an “imperial biopower”that overruled local
perceptions and values.1The case of Japan is typical as the country constructed its own imperial
botany ahead of being colonized itself.
When Japan faced the world after the collapse of its feudal system, it had to invent its own
modern identity, in which cherries emerged as a symbol of the new nation. In practice, this role
was more specifically occupied by the Tokyo Cherry, which was the most widely used symbol of
imperialism and militarism in Japan into the Pacific War (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2002). Mass produced
by gardeners, the Tokyo Cherry, with its spectacular blossom, is still the most commonly planted
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.
1Schiebinger and Swan (2004) on the larger frame of European colonial botany; Lafuente and Valverde (2004) and Müller-
Wille 2004,46–48 on the role of Linnaean botany in this respect. Lee (2015) on how Japan overcame the European hegemony
illustrated with a case study focusing on Nakai Takenoshin.
Science in Context (2024), 1–20
doi:10.1017/S0269889724000012
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

cherry within Japan, and it is exceedingly popular elsewhere in the world.2In essence it is a
horticultural product, but in the early twentieth century it received a Linnaean species name in
Latin, Prunus yedoensis, which gave it the status of a wild species. This effort to consolidate the
Tokyo Cherry’s meaning through science was accompanied by the start of fervent cherry research
among plant scientists in Japan. With the colonial conquest of Korea, exploring natural plant life
of the peninsula became part of imperial knowledge practices of the imperial center Japan (Lee,
2016). Within this context, a different, but similar looking cherry was discovered in Korea, and
was understood as a wild variety of the species Prunus yedoensis. In the end and with highly
questionable reasoning, it gained status as the Korean endemic parent of the Tokyo Cherry,
supporting Japanese imperialist claims to Korea.
Such scientific fabrication might have been expected to collapse with Japan’s defeat after the
Pacific War, but the imperialist legacy dragged on. Celebrating the independence of the new
Republic of Korea, the supposedly endemic parent of the Tokyo Cherry was successfully acclaimed
by a Korean botanist as the parent species of the colonial oppressor’s Tokyo Cherry and named the
King Cherry. The importance the King Cherry gained in subsequent journalism and scientific
research has resulted in it being listed as an endangered species in a national list (Kim 2014, 156).
In populist views among Koreans, the Tokyo Cherry has come to stand for Japanese nationalism
while the King Cherry exemplifies the nation of Korea.3
Scientists today define the King Cherry of Korea as being not-related through parentage to the
Tokyo Cherry, though both are taxonomically classified under Prunus ×yedoensis.4While King
Cherries look similar to the Tokyo Cherry, they are not propagated by gardeners, but are
spontaneous hybrids with different parentage (Lee 1996; Kim Chan-soo et al. 1998; Chang et al.
2004; Roh et al. 2007,2015). This conclusion may seem to have settled the dispute. Yet, without
addressing the legacy of nationalist bias, researchers in Korea and Japan have entered the field of
biotechnology, inflating problems of provenance, and classification (Innan et al. 1995; Kato et al.
2014; Cheong et al. 2017; Baek et al. 2018). The present paper explores the Korean and Japanese
perspectives on this issue through an analysis of the more intimate workings of taxonomy
confronted with cherry biology, and intends to show how the ethical standards of science were
compromised within the framework of nationalism and colonialism.5
A garden plant as symbol of the Japanese Nation
In ancient Japan cherry planting had become a symbolic action for claiming power. This began in
the ninth century when the emperor planted a cherry in front of his palace to replace a Chinese
style plum. After power systems had shifted from emperors to shoguns the practice remained. In
the old capital of Kyoto a new shogun brought in cherries from the Yoshino Mountain, south of
the city where the emperor was exiled. Planting these Yoshino cherries at an imperial garden in
Kyoto obviously asserted territorial claims. Botanically speaking these were wild Japanese
Mountain Cherries (Kuitert 1999,44–53; Kuitert 2007, 135).
For a new feudal dynasty of shoguns, a capital city was founded in 1603. The city was named
Edo and the shogun’s dynasty is often referred to as the Edo Period. In the newly established
capital Edo, it was self-evident that the shogun would plant Yoshino cherries. Thus wild Japanese
Mountain Cherries—not brought in from the famous and far away Yoshino Mountain but locally
grown from seed—came to be planted deliberately in urban areas that needed to be controlled.
2Kuitert (2021/2022) on botany of the Tokyo Cherry—clone and offspring; Kuitert (2022a) on how this cherry spread
worldwide as an emblem of Japan’s pride.
3Mitsuhashi (2016) demonstrated the position of these cherries in an educational experiment.
4Masamune and Suzuki (1936) proposed the Tokyo Cherry as a hybrid species, whence the ×–mark enters discourse as in
Prunus ×yedoensis or Cerasus ×yedoensis as synonym.
5Moon (2015) gives a more condensed overview of the social and cultural history of the Tokyo Cherry and the King Cherry
explored as comparative studies.
2 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Throughout the Edo period, planting occurred along strategic rivers and irrigation canals and also
around a Kan’ei-ji Temple, north-east of the shogun’s main castle. According to superstition, the
north-east was believed to generate evil influence; the temple with its cherries mitigated this and
protected the shogun (Kuitert 1999, 69). After the last feudal shogun stepped down in 1867, the
Kan’ei-ji Temple buildings were burnt in the troubles that accompanied the downfall of the
shogun’s government. Most likely the cherries also suffered. But Edo became modern Tokyo and
the Kan’ei-ji Temple grounds were under a new Tokyo administration and turned into a public
space, the Ueno Park. A park survey over the years 1885 and 1886 brought different cherries—not
Japanese Mountain Cherries—in focus; these had recently been transplanted by a gardener as
“Yoshino”cherry, a name that functioned as a marketing strategy, because of the fame of the
mountain.6This “Yoshino”had been propagated by the thousands as a clone and, as it quickly
grows into a proper tree, it must have helped to reestablish the fame of the Ueno cherry blossoms
whose symbolism had been so important for its urban planning. But since these were not from the
Yoshino Mountain and had been brought in by a gardener from a nursery village Somei, the park
survey took them as “Somei-yoshino”—which is still the name by which the Tokyo Cherry is well-
known in Japan today. Years later, in 1900, this vernacular name was published in a horticultural
magazine (Fujino 1900).
The shogun’s castle, protected by the Kan’ei-ji Temple with its cherries, was now the palace of
the new Meiji Emperor secured by institutions of the new state. In the Ueno Park, with its Tokyo
Cherries on the revered grounds, a brand-new National Museum, Zoo, and National Museum of
Nature and Science were all guiding the emperor and the nation towards modernity. Setting up
and managing of modern inventories of useful plants were the task of new administrators. Among
them was Tanaka Yoshio (1838–1916) a magnate and plantsman, also one of the founders of this
last Museum. He was responsible for such early inventories, where the Tokyo Cherry was headed
under the Japanese Mountain Cherry (Agricultural 1895, 134–135). Cherries of symbolic
significance could only be endemic Japanese Mountain Cherries, and not garden hybrids as feudal
scholarship had indicated.7That was simply common sense among all Japanese, including the
Somei gardener who had brought his “Yoshino,”named as if it was an endemic specimen. Later
however, Tanaka suspected it to be some form of the Ōshima Cherry (Makino 1926, 8), a tree not
endemic in Japan’s mountains, but on the islands and coasts of the Izu region. The tone was set:
this could not be an uneasy clonal cherry from some servile gardener, but should be a native plant
from the wild.
The issue of the Tokyo Cherry’s homeland, so important in embellishing the institutions of the
new state and, by extension, protecting the emperor, would be settled by botanical science—
another new tool for nation building. The tree’s provenance and identity were established by the
botanist Matsumura Jinzō(1856–1928). As a university assistant, Matsumura had helped his
professor collect specimens from all over the country, and had published a first inventory list of
the plants of Japan (Matsumura 1884). He had been working in the Koishikawa Botanical Garden
for many years before he became the first official director in 1897. He proved to be a prolific writer
of species descriptions in Latin, describing twenty-eight species—an average of more than two per
month—in 1901 (IPNI 2019). Among these is the Tokyo Cherry, where Matsumura gave it the
new Latin name of Prunus yedoensis (see figure 1).8Using Linnaean binominal nomenclature, he
6Kuitert (2022b) on the horticultural history of the Tokyo Cherry and the Somei gardeners, from feudal times into the
modern age.
7Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801), a prominent scholar in feudal times, compared the Japanese spirit with Mountain Cherry
blossom in the morning sun, setting the tone for centuries to come.
8Matsumura (1901) in my translation of his description in Latin: ‘Prunus (Cerasus) yedoensis, described by Matsumura as a
new species/Big tree, smooth branches, gray bark. Veins at the backside of young leaves are silky, smooth on both sides when
mature, broadly elliptic, ovate, oval, or elongated oval shape, with base obliquely acute or somewhat rounded, with two glands,
finely double serrated, with an acute tip or shortly caudate, eight to seventeen veins, with hairy leaf stalks, and incised stipules.
Flowers are precocious. Corymbs with two to three flowers; downy pedicels are shorter than the flowers, wedge-shaped bracts
Science in Context 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

indexed a gardener’s clone from Somei, a feudal village, under the Prunus umbrella of modern
international botany, befitting the new capital with a new species adorned with an epithet
yedoensis—indicating that it is a cherry from feudal Edo, also spelled as Yedo. Prunus yedoensis in
an English translation is “Tokyo Cherry.”
Matsumura noted in his description of the Tokyo Cherry that it is extensively cultivated in the
gardens of Tokyo. He distinguished it clearly from the wild Japanese Mountain Cherry pointing to
morphological details, and added that its origin is unknown, but it is said to have been brought
from the island Ōshima in the province of Izu. The island is known for its Ōshima Cherries, which
do indeed bear some resemblance to the Tokyo Cherry. Matsumura made his description from a
set of Tokyo Cherries planted in 1875 in rows on a lawn by the head gardener who had procured
these plants as root suckers from a very old Tokyo Cherry elsewhere in the garden (see figure 2).9
One of his students in posthumous praise said “This cherry has a most striking appearance
compared to all others, as was brought to a complete understanding among the botanists, when in
1901 professor Matsumura named it as Prunus yedoensis MATSUM.”(Koidzumi 1932a, 177).
What is nonetheless striking is that the Tokyo Cherry had already been described as a
cultivated plant the previous year in a horticultural magazine, albeit not in authoritative
international botanic Latin. Moreover, it had been cloned as a garden plant within his own
Botanical Garden, but Matsumura added a dubious provenance by suggesting it was a wild
Figure 1. The Tokyo Cherry proposed as species; description by Matsumura Jinzō. From Matsumura (1901).
are pubescent and gland-like serrate along the tip; interior bud scales are obovate to oblong, hairy on both sides, the outer
scales are broadly obovate-elliptic and finely glandulose at the edge. The calyx is pear-shaped cylindrical, pubescent, with
sepals that are ovate, tapering to the end and have few teeth, are shorter than the calyx tube; petals are broadly obovate, elliptic,
are notched and from the beginning soft pink, turning to white; the style is hairy. The stony seed is smooth, somewhat elliptic,
lenticular (like a lentil seed), 9 mm. long, 7 mm. long. The fruit stalks are spreading, somewhat pubescent./It is different from
P. pseudo-Ceraso, Lindl. because of the early flowers, the hairy style, and the petioles and pedicels that are more or less
pubescent./Habitat is in the gardens of Tokyo where it is extensively cultivated. Unknown origin, brought from the island
Ōshima in the province of Izu, is is said.’Earlier Matsumura gave the wild Japanese Mountain Cherry as Prunus pseudocerasus
Lindl. var. spontanea Maxim. (Matsumura 1895, 239).
9Nakai (1935) discusses this old Tokyo Cherry standing at the entrance of Matsumura’s Koishikawa Botanical Garden that
served as mother plant; root suckers were planted higher up the slope deeper in the garden as a backup of this precious cherry
for preservation purposes (Nakai 1935, 48); Iketani (2013) and Kuitert (2022b) on the present state.
4 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Ōshima Cherry. Yet he remained vague as his status as scientist was at stake. It is telling to see how
Matsumura began to feel uncomfortable with the mushrooming symbolic importance of the
Tokyo Cherry a few years later.
Cherries had been important garden plants for the feudal elite, but near the end of the
nineteenth century, through purposeful policy procedures, they became plants for the masses and
a propaganda tool for the intense nationalism and militarism of the modern government. A yearly
Cherry Viewing Party supervised by the emperor himself commenced from 1881 onwards, further
intensifying the cherries’educational message (Ama 1991,2–5). Entering the twentieth century,
the popularity of the Tokyo Cherry quickly rose outside Tokyo as well (Makino 1933). After Japan
had won the war with Russia in 1905, amidst the excitement of national pride, parks nationwide
were adorned with the easily propagated, and now mass-produced and spectacularly flowering
Tokyo Cherries. These were often planted around the memorials celebrating events (Matsumura
1906; Sano 1998, 95). Militarism had also stressed the strategic importance of the Korean
peninsula, where the Japanese navy established a naval port at Jinhae. Tokyo Cherries were
planted massively in this port city starting in 1906 and, in following decades, all over Korea (Korea
Institute 1998, 22; Hwang 2007, 26). Jinhae happens to have a mild climate, and its cherries are
almost the first ones in all of Korea to flower, heralding the wave of blossoms that spreads over the
peninsula each spring (Korea Institute 1998, 20). This must have given intense and added feelings
of pride and possession to the Japanese involved. Militarist agitation blended with emotions of
imperialist progress that clung to the aesthetics of the Nation’s Flower.
Matsumura, in his essay “Notes on Cherries,”expressed his irritation at the general public, who
do not differentiate this Nation’s Flower from the various other cherries and simply see all of them
as beautiful. The real Japanese, he argued, should appreciate the refined elegance of the native
Japanese Mountain Cherry rather than the vulgar and voluptuous beauty of the Tokyo Cherry
(Matsumura 1906). Miyoshi Manabu (1861–1939), a conservative cherry scholar, felt the same,
arguing that the cloned Tokyo Cherry not only offers no fodder for research, but also has no
aesthetic merit, as each individual specimen is the same (Miyoshi 1920a, 11). Miyoshi did not
address the Tokyo Cherry at all in his monograph (Miyoshi 1916). But Matsumura had seen
Figure 2. Spring under Tokyo Cherries in the Koishikawa Botanical Garden. Trees are regrowths after the devastating 1945
air raids from the earlier trees seen in Figure 3. Koishikawa Botanical Garden, Tokyo. Photo by author, March 31, 2019.
Science in Context 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

herbarium specimens from flowering cherries in Europe that were collected not only from Japan,
but also from Yunnan in China and the Himalayas in India. Although he understood that cherries
could hardly be seen as plants unique to Japan, he succumbed to political correctness and praised
their refined elegance as part of classic Japanese aesthetics (Mito 2014).
In “Notes on Cherries,”Matsumura referred to the Tokyo Cherry not as “Somei-yoshino”but
as Takigi-zakura (Matsumura 1906), a name that translates as the Charcoal Cherry and is another
folk name for the Ōshima Cherry. Obviously referring back to his earlier suggestion for the
provenance, Matsumura stressed once more that he thought the Tokyo Cherry was some form of
the Ōshima Cherry rather than a nursery product. It seems that for Matsumura, the idea that it
was a gardeners’bastard, and not a pure wild, indigenous species may have been indigestible.
However, there was simply no return from the mushrooming popularity of the Nation’s Flower.
Ten years later, in the international arena, this Ōshima Cherry was indeed understood as one of
the parent species of the hybrid Tokyo Cherry by British plant hunter Ernest Henry Wilson
(1876–1930). The other parent, according to him was a Higan Cherry, a judgement that he derived
from botanical details, such as pubescence, growing habits and the like (Wilson 1916,15–17).
Wilson was well-informed on Japanese flowering cherries through various local experts, including
gardeners, nursery men, and horticulturalists (Koehne 1917, 1) and they will have helped him to
reach at a more realistic classification. Wilson’s statement could not be ignored, but it was decades
before Japanese scientists picked it up.
Yamato in Korea, an imperial hybrid as species
Matsumura’s conjecture that the Nation’s Flower cannot be a nursery product, but should be
classified correctly as a true, wild species was realized during the imperialist conquest of Korea.
Exploring the new land not only provided botanists with mouth-watering chances to discover and
describe new plants (Mori 1922,2–3), but it also slid the cherry discourse smoothly into cultural
policies towards a unified colonial empire.10
The plantsmen of Japan, joined by two Frenchmen and a German, all scrambled for what
seemed a second and different Tokyo Cherry found in an outermost corner of the expanding
empire, on Jeju Island (known as Quelpaert until 1910) off the southern tip of the Korean
peninsula. An herbarium specimen of this Jeju cherry reached Emil Koehne (1848–1918), a
German dendrologist and good botanic draftsman who was preparing a publication on Japanese
cherries (Harms 1919; Koehne 1917; Pax 1918). The specimen resembled the Tokyo Cherry that
he had studied since one was planted in the Berlin arboretum in 1900 (Koehne 1917,39–40). Now,
imagining this single herbarium specimen as a representative of many identical trees in a wider
area, Koehne proposed a new regional variety nudiflora, headed under P. yedoensis (Koehne
1911/12). Matsumura’s hopeful aspiration that P. yedoensis itself was a species and not a cultivated
clone was, with its variety P. yedoensis var. nudiflora corroborated, at least on paper and in a
respectable international scientific paper in Latin.
The herbarium consulted by Koehne had been collected by French amateur botanist Émile
Taquet (1873–1952) who had been put in charge as a Catholic missionary on Jeju island in 1902. It
was just after a massacre of Christians and naturally proselytizing efforts were slow. With time to
travel, Taquet started observing and collecting plants, and sending herbarium specimens out
(IRFA 2020a). He found inspiration and encouragement for his efforts in his respected senior
colleague Urbain Faurie (1847–1915). Faurie too was a French missionary, and had settled in
10Hyun (2019, 245) on support for the assimilation of the Korean race into the Japanse that motivated certain researchers
on blood, where some tried to prove that the Japanese race should be superior to the Korean. The Tokyo Cherry discourse also
meant mending species together when it came to the cherry found in Jeju that is discussed in this section. However, the
Japanese made no effort to prove that Japanese cherries were better than Korean as there were already hundreds of superior
cultivated forms within Japan; such forms were not found in Korea.
6 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

northern Japan two decades earlier. But as hearts of the Japanese were stubbornly closed to
Christianity he found solace in botany and, from the 1880s onwards, was botanizing (IRFA
2020b). Faurie had visited Jeju Island once (Kakuta 1992, 70), but the visit was too short to fully
explore its natural wealth, the product of its generous climate conditions. Now, however, the floral
abundance of the island was in Taquet’s reach every day, and he could send out numerous
herbarium specimens. The specimens included material of several cherries that were growing high
up on the slopes of the Halla Mountain behind his church village Sohong-ni on southern Jeju
where he lived. On April fourteenth, 1908, Taquet numbered three specimens from the same
cherry as 4638 and it was one of these that Koehne studied.11
Koehne’s report likely did not amuse Faurie. Being a staunch nationalist and having personal
experiences in the war with Prussia, Faurie hated anything German (Hayata 1916, 270; Kitamura
1979, 94) and perhaps he was aware that Koehne had been wounded quite severely in the Battle of
Metz (Harms 1919,74–75). Ignoring Koehne, Faurie addressed a young Japanese botanist and
student of Matsumura. This was Koidzumi Gen’ichi (1883–1953) (Hisauchi 1954; Kitamura 1954,
1982). Having seen Taquet’s herbarium at Faurie’s, and another Japanese botanist’s suggestion,
Koidzumi published a miscellaneous and short note that the natural habitat of the Tokyo Cherry is
Jeju Island (Koidzumi 1913a, 395). Despite of lacking data and argument this note was quoted by
Miyoshi (Miyoshi 1916, 23).12 And although Koidzumi was corresponding with Koehne (Koehne
1917, 1), he did not refer to Koehne’s classification published the year before.
To the Japanese, the meaning of Korea and of cherries had by now evolved significantly. After
being taken as a protectorate in 1905, the peninsula was fully annexed by Japan in 1910.
Meanwhile, cherries had become a powerful state gift, after more than six thousand had been
shipped to the USA at the wish of the first lady Helen Taft in February 1912, setting a tradition of
American blossom festivals (Jefferson and Fusoni 1977). More than ever before, cherries were a
symbol of Japan’s Empire, precisely expressed by Nitobe: “it is still a living object of power and
beauty among us”and also illustrated with his poem “Isles of blest Japan!/Should your Yamato
spirit/Strangers seek to scan,/Say - scenting morn’s sun-lit air,/Blows the cherry wild and fair!”
(Nitobe [1899] 1900, 1, 109–111).
In a full overview of the Rosaceae in Japan, Koidzumi gave Matsumura’s Tokyo Cherry an
extensive new description in Latin, updating its scientific status. He added that it is commonly
cultivated, and that Jeju Island is its natural area of distribution, without any reference to Koehne’s
nudiflora. In Koidzumi’s overview, the only illustrative photos are of flowering twigs of a few other
Japanese cherries, yet strikingly, the Tokyo Cherry gets a page-wide photo of the trees in blossom
in the Koishikawa Botanical Garden (see figure 3). It also receives a new and telling nomen novum:
“Yamato-sakura”(Koidzumi 1913b, 263–264, followed by Koehne 1917, 38). Nationalist qualities
of the Tokyo Cherry could hardly have been brought further than this, as Yamato was a heavily
laden nominator for the true, native Japanese people, including their history, territory, their pure
blood, and their samurai fighting spirit. This Yamato Cherry was naturally distributed in Korea.
The exploration of the whole flora of Korea, by order of the Japanese government, had begun in
1906. Another young and brilliant student of Matsumura was engaged for this project—Nakai
Takenoshin (1882–1952) (Nakai 1927; Lee 2015, 668). Nakai became the foremost specialist on
Korean botany (Hara 1953) and, by order of the Japanese colonial government in Korea, he
reported on the Jeju cherry in his Flora Sylvatica Koreana.13 An extensive text, it explores the
problem of how this cherry could ever have reached Japan in feudal times, but ultimately states
that the Tokyo Cherry is wild (not native) but rare in Jeju. The abstract, written in international
11See Chang (2019) with data of the three samples found in the collections of the Universities of Tokyo and Kyoto, and the
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.
12Miyoshi (1916) in his introduction shortly introduces Matsumura’sP. yedoensis and quotes Koidzumi, but does not treat
the Tokyo Cherry in his taxonomical overview.
13See Lee (2015, 671) on the international acclaim that Nakai gained through this Flora.
Science in Context 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Figure 3. A page-wide photo of the set of Tokyo Cherries in the Koishikawa Botanical Garden accompanies Koidzumi’s
extensive Latin description of his Prunus yedoensis,“Yamato-sakura”. From Koidzumi (1913b).
8 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Latin, also quotes Koehne’snudiflora as living in the forests of Jeju. This is followed by a note that
this plant is common in gardens of the Japanese, and is said to have stemmed from the gardens of
Somei in olden times, while the Ōshima Island is not its home because that only has the Ōshima
Cherry (Nakai 1915, 141; 1916,9–10, 24–25). On this latter point, Nakai introduces a minor
critique on his teacher, professor Matsumura. On the whole, however, Nakai constructed,
supported by Koidzumi, a learned classification for the Nation’s Flower as being a wild species in
Korea, bolstering the imperialist meaning of Japan’s cherries for colonial politics.
The First World War brought further economic prosperity to Japan, while commercial fairs
advertised colonial wealth. But the self-confidence about the greater imperialist purpose also led to
thoughts of independence and resistance in Korea. Cultural policies were increasingly required to
back up colonial rule, in which the Tokyo Cherry played a key role. From 1933, school text books
took the cherry as a main theme for teaching primary school kids Japanese language, or middle
schoolers biology (Kuitert 1999,94–96, 135). At the same time, more general or popular-science
plant books unequivocally explained the Tokyo Cherry as being a wild plant of Korea’s native flora
(Mori 1922, 212; Makino et al. 1931, 500; Uyeki 1933, 84). Cherries were planted by the thousands
(Kim 2011, 127–133) and blossom festivities were promoted more effectively. The Tokyo Cherries
were an innovative propaganda tool in the new botanical garden of Seoul, which had been set up in
one of the former royal palaces. From 1924 onwards, the flowers were celebrated with electric
illumination and night-time festivities (Kim 2017, 180–183). Particularly these cherries were seen
as having “a role in the establishing of Our Land”(Ishidoya 1929, 67).
The Bureau of Forestry of the Japanese colonial government of Korea also advertised the Jeju
hypothesis, suggesting that an original tree could have been brought by ship to Japan in remote
history (Ishidoya 1929). This announcement was made by Ishidoya Tsutomu (1884–1958) a staff
member who was also teaching at the Imperial University in Seoul.14 On a late afternoon in April
1932, Koidzumi arrived in person as the first true plant scientist to verify the cherry flowers of
amateur Taquet on the higher slopes of Halla Mountain in Jeju. Guided by Ishidoya and the staff
of the Bureau, he was shown what they thought to be the real and wild Tokyo Cherry. Blatantly
wrong, but in full triumph, Koidzumi claimed to have seen a real Tokyo Cherry on a mountain
walk in Jeju in a miscellaneous essay that was published shortly after his visit (Koidzumi 1932a).
Conveniently, this time he does quote Koehne (1911/12) as an important authority proving that
the Tokyo Cherry is endemic (not wild, and not natural) on Jeju Island, although its phyto-
geography remained problematic: why should this garden plant cherished in Tokyo be on the
slopes of a mountain in Jeju? The solution that Koidzumi proposed was again a tree resembling
the Tokyo Cherry, Prunus sacra, that had been discovered earlier (Miyoshi 1920b, 168–169).
Koidzumi suggested that this sacred cherry found at an old temple in the Yoshino Mountain in the
Yamato Province must have been the one that had arrived by ship from Jeju at the end of the
feudal dynasties in tandem with the Tokyo Cherry, from which the latter then had arrived in Edo
as “Yoshino”(Koidzumi 1932a, 179).
The Jeju hypothesis for the Tokyo Cherry now fully endorsed the status and ambitions of
imperialist Japan:
This Somei-yoshino Cherry [Tokyo Cherry], crossed over to Chosen [Korea] after the
annexation, and did not spread straight from the native place of birth of Chosen’s Somei-
yoshino which is Jeju Island, but only temporarily it went to the mainland [Japan] and from
the mainland it crossed over again to Chosen. Furthermore, it was sent from our country to
Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles in America, and to London in England among
others, above all in Washington it breeds successfully and displays its full blossom in no
14See Fedman (2020) on the wider strategies of the colonial forestry in Korea, with a biography of Ishidoya (103–104, ff).
Lee (2016) on the details of Ishidoya’s career and cooperation with his Korean assistant Jong (Jong Taehyon, in a different
romanization spelled by Lee as Chung Tyaihyon).
Science in Context 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

means inferior to our land. These cherries growing rampant overseas, these are all the Somei-
yoshino Cherry. Thus, the fact that the Somei-yoshino Cherry, native to Jeju Island spreads
all over the world, takes after the stretching of the majesty of our nation, which is really a
delightful thing. (Mori 1933, 68).
Although it is easy in retrospect to see through the proposals of Koidzumi and Nakai, both were
highly respected as corresponding members and visitors of eminent international scientific
institutions, and both were employed in reputable imperial universities performing at an
international level—all new achievements for the quickly rising superpower state Japan. But they
were also based in mainland Japan, and therefore at a distance from the fieldwork in Korea.15 Less
biased by the imperialist center was the righteous criticism of Takenaka Yō(1903–1966), a plant
science professor in higher education at the Imperial University in Seoul, whose research was
more horticulturally framed. He too climbed the mountain in Jeju and found several fundamental
inconsistencies (Takenaka 1936). Nevertheless, his critique was ignored. A small group of Korean
botanists led by Jong Taehyon (1883–1971), who had been educated as an assistant to Ishidoya,
began a project to make an inventory of vernacular plant names in the late 1930s in a drive to find
Korean identity in botanical geography.16 Despite all the efforts by the Japanese to insert the
Tokyo Cherry in a Korean phytogeography, these Korean botanists were not convinced and gave
no Korean name for Koehne’snudiflora, whereas the Tokyo Cherry itself was called simply
“Sagura”after sakura, the generic Japanese for cherries (Jong et al. 1937, 96).
The King Cherry, a hybrid for independence and national pride
Then the Pacific War broke out. Cherry blossoms became an important Japanese propaganda tool
for recruiting young students to serve as kamikaze pilots (Ohnuki-Tierney 2002). During and after
the war the USA continued its cherry blossom celebrations every spring in Washington D.C.
(Kuitert 2022a). In Japan, many Tokyo Cherries were replanted immediately after the defeat
(Hiratsuka 2001, 158-159). However, for Koreans, the end of the war meant the end of Japanese
colonialism, and for some the uprooting of Tokyo Cherries, that now could burn as fuelwood,
often with feelings of revenge (see figure 4) (Anonymous 1945; Takekuni 1999, 234-235; Hwang
2007, 25-26).
The new Republic of Korea assigned Park Mankyu (1906–1977), a middle school biology
teacher employed by the Ministry of Education, the critical post-liberation task of investigating the
natural resources of plant life (Hyun 2020). His An Index of the Plants of Our Country lists fifty-
eight species and varieties of Prunus, with synonyms and sometimes a short remark. Matsumura’s
yedoensis is given as “Someiyoshino”and explained as a cultivated decorative blossom cherry with
a vernacular name, Wangbeonnamu, with Jeju Island as native land. In contrast, Koehne’s
yedoensis var. nudiflora gets a Korean name Minbeonnamu with a simple “Jeju Island”(Park 1949,
118–121). This seems to be the first time that Wangbeonnamu, King Cherry Tree, was published
officially as a vernacular name for the Tokyo Cherry. The “wang”(king) is a complementary for
“big”in plant names, and referred, in this case, to the king-size flowers. But a few years later the
peninsula divided and the Korean War soon broke out, with its disastrous and destructive
consequences.
In Japan, a new genetic research facility was set up where, from 1949, Takenaka Yō, who had
returned from Seoul, began investigating cherries. His breeding experiments with the Ōshima
Cherry and Higan Cherry as parents, following Wilson’s classification, led to a wide range of
15Lee (2015, 669, 676) on the divergence between the local contexts of field work in Korea and the armchair scientists within
Japan proper secured by imperial power.
16Lee (2016) in detail on the cooperation and careers of Ishidoya and Jong (Jong Taehyon =Chung Tyaihyon), and their
interaction with Nakai Takenoshin. Lee (2013) on plant research as national task in Korea.
10 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

plants very similar to the Tokyo Cherry, supporting the case that it was a nursery hybrid and not a
wild species (Takenaka 1963). One of these chance seedlings was named “Shōwa-zakura,”in
reference to the imperial era of Shōwa and its Emperor Hirohito, a figure whose responsibility and
role in the war are still under discussion. In April 1965 the Emperor himself visited Takenaka to
see this cherry in person (Mori 2013).
The international acclaim for the yedoensis case had thus far been limited to circles of fellow
researchers. However, in the 1950s, in the milder zones of Soviet Russia, decorative cherries from
the East regained interest from an unanticipated source. The botanist Aleksandr Vasil’yev (1902–
1979), attached to the Sukhumi Botanical Garden in Abkhazia, had travelled to China and various
European countries to explore useful plants to grow in his region (Ayba et al. 2015). Using earlier
Soviet taxonomy, he classified Japanese cherries under the genus Cerasus, including this time
Figure 4. The desire to remove the cherries that had been the symbol of Japan’s colonial rule was one of the expressions of
revenge among the Koreans immediately after liberation. From Byeol nara 1945, coll. Kobay Auction.
Science in Context 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

yedoensis (Vasil’yev 1957, 124), thus unexpectedly augmenting the scientific status of this garden
plant from outside the established circles of cherry research. The Soviet Union and China soon
became allies with North Korea in 1961, and the iron curtain fully descended over Northeast Asia.
Japan and South Korea were thus forced to become geopolitical allies, bringing the South Koreans
into a period of nation-building and a politically supported search for cultural identity (Kim 1976,
10–12). To this end, South Korea borrowed Japanese methods of cultural mobilization to facilitate
national development as part of a deliberate state policy. Korean government policies were pro-
Japanese in effect, while promoting “triumph over Japan,”rather than anti-Japanese emotions in
its populism (Park 2010,71–76). The legacy of cherry symbolism in Korea found its own solution
within this paradox.
In April 1962, a group of researchers sponsored by the Dong-A Ilbo newspaper, and headed by
Park Mankyu—who had just become a university teacher of plant taxonomy and now was director
of Korea’s National Science Museum (Hyun 2020) climbed Halla Mountain (Park 1965, 14). A few
days later, the local newspaper could report in jubilant phrasing that a group of scientists had
discovered the King Cherry Blossom Tree (Wangbeotkkot-namu) on Halla Mountain, the native
place of Japan’s National Flower (Park 1962). Consequently, the King Cherry and not an
internationally acclaimed scientific Latin plant entered the public discourse nationwide a few days
later (Kim 2011, 132). Park’s academic paper followed, and natural monuments to protect sites of
the wild King Cherry were set up (Park 1965,14–15).
Assured that the Tokyo Cherry was of native Korean blood, Jinhae City decided to revive the
cherry image of its naval port as a strategy to promote tourism. However, because planting
material was not easily available in Korea, the first two thousand clonal Tokyo Cherries were
imported from Japan. With added support from Koreans living in Japan, the city had managed to
plant over 300,000 cherries by 2006 (Hwang 2007,26–28; Korea Institute 1998,22–25). During
these years not only in Jinhae, but all over South Korea, cherries were planted abundantly, boosted
by the Great Cherry Planting Campaign announced by President Park Chunhee (Mitsuhashi 2016,
39–40). The idea of celebrating spring with a picnic or a walk under “native”cherry blossoms,
those that had generated the colonial oppressor’s Tokyo Cherry, made the Jeju hypothesis
attractive, this time not for Japanese imperialists, but now paradoxically for Korean chauvinist
researchers.
Research on Jeju, however, was not easy. Among the islanders, the cherry was valued as timber,
so that old trees were extremely rare (Korea Institute 1998,11–12). Taquet had found the tree for
his herbarium no. 4638 high on the slopes of the Halla Mountain. In these early years of the
twentieth century, and at the altitude where he found the specimen, the forest was not
undisturbed. A number of shiitake-mushroom farms were actively being cultivated (Rikuchi
1917/18) which established a secondary forest edge as a habitat for cherries in hybridization, and
also made the mountainside accessible to plant explorers on foot.17 Koidzumi, Takenaka, and Park
found their King Cherries at roughly the same altitude at the upper edge of pasture land in
remnant patches of forest (Takenaka 1936; Park 1965, 14). However, researchers who have
searched Mount Halla in the 1980s and beyond have so far not been able to rediscover either the
trees found by Taquet or those found by Koidzumi and Takenaka (Kim 2011, 132).
Korean research began as an investigation into morphological details of flowers and leaves of
trees on Halla Mountain. It became clear, first, that the King Cherry was rare; among the many
Higan and mountain cherries only ten specimens were counted in 1965, and it also seemed to be a
hybrid between these two (Harn 1965, 11, 18). Horizontal starch gel electrophoresis in three
buffers gave further strong evidence for this hybridization (Harn et al., 1977). Yet, other electronic
microscopy research on pollen found a morphology that seemed to deny such hybridization (Park
et al., 1984). Cladistical analysis of morphological characteristics again introduced a different
17Darapisa (2019) illustrates how deviating Jeju cherry hybrids were mostly discovered close to the mountain trails of the
Halla Mountain, rather than deep in the forest.
12 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

parent species (Kim 1990). Academics did not interfere with the public discourse, but
sought answers to pressing questions about the King Cherry’s identity through natural science,
mathematics, and technology, setting the mood for decades to come. In a conclusive assemblage of
all possible scientific research, an official government report stressed the close relationship
between the cultivated Tokyo Cherry and the King Cherry hybrids, concluding that the wild King
Cherry of Jeju had evolved as a distinct, independent taxon (Kim Yun-sik 1998,68–69), nicely
affirming the geopolitical setting of a self-confident and independent Korea in partnership with its
neighbor.
On Jeju Island, from 1997, a cherry festival with various events was staged, attracting many
visitors, including not a few Japanese tourists (Korea Institute 1998,28–30). Jeju City and Jeju
University gained a clear role. A research team from the university surveyed the natural habitat of
the King Cherry discovering this time thirty-three specimen trees of various sizes distributed up
the Halla Mountain at an altitude of between 450 and 800 meters; flowers, leaves, fruits, and seed
were sampled and also showed a large variability whereas the size of these was mostly smaller than
of cultivated Tokyo Cherries. A further two pubescent cherries, with morphological details slightly
differing from the ones that Nakai had named before, were also classified as different forma, while
two new Prunus species and a new variety for P. yedoensis were identified (Kim Chan-soo 1998,
fig.20, 89; Kim Chan-soo et al., 1998). The minute definitions of new taxa went hand in hand with
the discovery of a large variability. It was clear that research had to focus more in detail on the
King Cherry itself.
With the changing political mood and its popular appeal, the King Cherry had turned into an
asset for developing cultural tourism. To this end the Korea Institute of Environmental Policy and
Evaluation from the Ministry of Environment stressed that genetic research was of utmost
importance to find and propagate an excellent variety that should be mass-produced by tissue
culture and widely distributed (Korea Institute 1998, 23, 56, 57). Research on mass propagation
technology soon began (Kim et al., 2012).
It might have been expected that genetics would be a promising avenue for evaluating
excellence and parentage. However, such sophisticated research technology in itself does not
guarantee good science, and genetics in plant taxonomy depart from results that are already
known from field morphology.18 In Japan, the Tokyo Cherry was indeed proved to be a hybrid of
the Ōshima Cherry and the Higan Cherry, where the latter was the seed parent and the Ōshima
Cherry the pollen donor (Kaneko et al. 1986; Innan et al. 1995; Iketani et al. 2007; Kato et al. 2014).
After Wilson (1916) and Takenaka (1963), this does not come as a sensational surprise.
Traditional cherry nurseries had the famed selections thanks to centuries of breeding experience.
Many of these cherries are not sterile and continue to produce freely germinating seeds today. Any
such nursery automatically begins to function like some condensed and highly variable hybrid
swarm where spectacular cherry hybrids are easily found among seedlings, including hybrids of
the parents of the Tokyo Cherry. The Ōshima Cherry is grown as rootstock and the Higan Cherry
has a striking weeping form, which, since the seventeenth century, has appeared in cherry lists as
ito-zakura. That the Tokyo Cherry showed up in a specialized cherry nursery in feudal Somei is
natural and self-evident.
And what about the King Cherry? Genetic research by a group of scientists in Korea on five
King Cherries found on Jeju indicated that four—one of these legally protected—were natural
hybrids from a cross between seed parent Higan Cherry and a paternal mountain cherry, all clearly
different from the Tokyo Cherry; the fifth one in this research was an accession of the Tokyo
Cherry escaped from culture (Baek et al. 2018,10–11). Tokyo Cherries can be found one hundred
meters from one of the natural monument sites in Jeju (Korea Institute 1998, 58); many had
18Chang (2000,97–100) on declining field work and herbarium research in Korea, while the number of plant scientists
working on screens in molecular biology, computer science, and biotechnology is growing; research towards understanding
biodiversity suffers. This is a worldwide disaster anyway.
Science in Context 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

supposedly been planted on Jeju Island during and after the 1910s (Takenaka 1936), and again in a
large-scale roadside planting during the 1930s (Park 1965,13–14). Elsewhere on the Halla
Mountain the clonal Tokyo Cherry has left its genetics in natural habitats of the King Cherry (Cho
et al. 2019,11–12). Bees can bring pollen to and from the Tokyo Cherry as far as two to three
hundred meters (Mukai 2014,24–25); flying birds bring seeds for kilometers. And, of course, there
are also several wild cherry species in the forests of Jeju. One officially protected King Cherry was
in fact a Higan Cherry (Lee 1996), and Taquet’s herbarium number 4638 is presently interpreted
as the pubescent form of the Japanese Mountain Cherry (Chang and Kim 2019). The flowering
cherries of East Asia are known for their intra-specific hybridization. An active and complex
hybridization of wild cherry species, including back-crossing of hybrids with their parent species,
and with the Tokyo Cherry, has resulted in a highly active hybrid swarm on Jeju Island; it is not
the kind of hybridization that produces a new hybrid species (Cho et al. 2017, 457).
However clear the conclusions may be, genetic research has not been free from bias. The wild
King Cherry is considered to have “superior flower, cherry, and shape ornamental characteristics”
with “a beautiful shape”,“with superior ornamental characteristics”(Baek et al. 2018, 2, 3, 11). Yet,
earlier research had stated that its botanical details were generally smaller than the Tokyo Cherry
(Kim Chan-soo 1998, vii). For the researcher, the problem then becomes to “correctly identify”the
King Cherry in the wild “with highly precise tools as molecular markers”(Baek et al., 2018, 11). In
line with the Ministry of Environment, and the financial support of the National Research Fund of
Korea, genetic research was directed towards an active hybrid swarm with the task of finding the
“correct”King Cherry. But the Tokyo Cherry also must be defined as “correct”: the clone that
derives from the Koishikawa Garden is the true clone, others not (Iketani et al., 2007,2–4), while
propagating by seedling is considered incorrect (Katsuki et al., 2016, 1415). Although genetics can
bring hard data, the research papers above do not explain how that genetic data can be used to
establish correct ancestry.
Two iconic cherries, concluding remarks
Sometime around the mid-nineteenth century a Somei gardener brought his spectacular Tokyo
Cherries to the Kan’ei-ji Temple grounds. He could not even have dreamt about its future as
National Flower or the bias and the overblown discourse it would bring to modern plant science.
Why was this garden plant inflated so much?
Japan’s wild flora had entered Western scientific discourse through plant hunters such as
Thunberg and Von Siebold. With the advance of society in post-feudal Japan, plantsmen and
herbalists faced the European hegemony of modern scientific botany19 where they were in an
underdog position while native plant material, collected by foreigners, was sent in a never-ending
flow of garden material and herbaria to Western botanists: Faurie discovered well over 1300 “new”
species in Japan (Koidzumi 1936,11–12). To the frustration of Japanese botanists, Europeans
quickly published spectacular numbers of light-hearted new names for plants they had never seen
in the wild (Yatabe 1890). But victories in the Sino-Japanese War (1895) and the Russo-Japanese
War (1905) made Japan a major world power, admired by many Western nations and provided
Japanese botanists with the psychology to overcome their frustration of not having been taken
seriously by the West.20 Japan’s cherries were a celebrated, well distributed, local group of plants
with rich horticultural practice where victory could be gained globally. In a straightforward
competition with Wilson, Miyoshi published his monograph on Japanese cherries only twenty
days earlier than his American rival (Miyoshi 1916; Wilson 1916), while Koidzumi and Koehne
worked more in cooperation on theirs (Koidzumi 1913b, 254–312; Koehne 1917). In the heat of
19See Lee (2016) on how Japanese and Korean researchers were guided and limited by the hegemony of European science.
20See Lee (2015) on how Nakai Takenoshin, in this context, overcame this frustration and received international
recognition as Japanese botanist on Korean flora.
14 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

the battle, Miyoshi assigned dozens of new Latin forma names to deviating individuals of Japanese
Mountain Cherries found at famous cherry sites, choosing new Japanese names or turning to the
names given by cherry lovers in the past.21 In a similar drive to excel among Western botanists,
(Lee 2015, 676), Nakai discerned seven forms of pubescent cherries in Korea, relying on minute
details (Chang et al. 2007, 36). And these botanists were not the only cherry scholars. Botany,
which had been claimed by western imperialist scientists could be returned to the Japanese by
Koidzumi and Nakai, becoming corresponding members of a global community and visited the
West to verify herbarium collections on Japanese plants (Ohwi 1932). It is this context, including
defeat and victory in real war and a typical Berlin School drive for encyclopedic perfection, that
made Koehne support Matsumura’s perspective on the Tokyo Cherry by proposing his nudiflora.
If Koehne had been aware that this herbarium was a hybrid, he would not have taken the trouble
as, for him, hybrids were inferior bastards that should not be named separately or described
extensively (Koehne 1893, IX). It was an explicit statement of a self-evident truth in plant
taxonomy. Authority and ego of the new, scientific persona, the male botanist could push such
things through in a dialectic of science adjusting to increasing and cheering nationalism.22 An East
Asian professor-student attitude made Nakai and Koidzumi eager to provide a wild or even an
endemic species taxon to the clonal garden plant their professor had tried to classify as species.
After independence Korean researchers entered the international arena in a similar underdog
position and relied on research reports of the Japanese (Park 1949,3–10). Statements were once
again made quickly and without many research standards. While passing on a problematic taxon,
a vernacular Korean identity for the Tokyo Cherry was incidentally constructed, while more
balanced local research was ignored (Takenaka 1936; Jong et al. 1937).
From the 1950s, taxonomists worldwide began adhering to the obligatory rules for publishing
valid and legitimate botanical species names. The hybrid taxon Prunus ×yedoensis or Cerasus ×
yedoensis was internationally accepted and became used for a range of cherries that were similar to
the Tokyo Cherry. Besides the Tokyo Cherry, Korean and Japanese scientists have discovered and
discerned today a large number of yedoensis-related taxa.23 All of these are present as few trees in
the wild or as a few cloned ones from a wild tree that has disappeared, or as herbarium only. All
are hybrids with the Higan Cherry as the seed parent; for the pollen parent we find the Korean
Mountain Cherry, the Japanese Mountain Cherry, or the Sargent Cherry (Katsuki et al., 2016,
1416–1419). These were discovered where distribution of the parent species overlaps. In such a
habitat, new hybrids between the parents will continue to spring up. And as East Asian cherries are
quite variable, these foreseen hybrids will have visibly varying botanical details with a different
genetic profile. Should these receive a Latin taxon name then?24
21Miyoshi (1916), introduced for example the rows of Japanese Mountain Cherries planted at the Koganei canal as
selections from the wild (Wildformen) and gives thirty-eight of them a new Latin name.
22Daston and Sibum (2003) on scientific persona and the dialectic of mutual adjustment.
23See Katsuki and Iketani (2016, 1416–1419) sorting taxons out according to their taxonomic standing; here given in
alphabetical order: Cerasus fukudana (Koidz.) Masam. & Suzuki; C. ×kashioensis (H.Kubota & Moriya) T.Katsuki & Iketani;
C. leveilleana f. kashioensis (H.Kubota & Moriya) H.Ohba; C. mochidzukiana (Nakai) Masam. & Suzuki; C. ×mochizukiana
(Nakai) H.Ohba; C. ×naganoi (H.Kubota & Moriya) H.Ohba; C. nikaii (Honda) Masam. & Suzuki; C. ×nudiflora (Koehne)
T.Katsuki & Iketani; C. ×sacra (Miyoshi) Masam. & Suzuki; C. shirataki (Koidz.) Masam. & Suzuki; C. ×yedoensis (Matsum.)
Masam. & Suzuki; Prunus fukudana Koidz.; P. fukudana var. pendula Koidz.; P. hallasanensis Chan S.Kim & M.H.Kim;
P. longistyla Chan S.Kim & M.H.Kim; P. media Miyoshi; P. mochidzukiana Nakai; P. mutabilis f. subsessilis Miyoshi;
P. ×naganoi H.Kubota & Moriya; P. nikaii (Honda) Koidz.; P. quelpaertensis Nakai; P. sacra Miyoshi; P. sacra f. longipes
Miyoshi; P. shirataki Koidz.; P. tobagenzoana Koidz.; P. verecunda var. kashioensis H.Kubota & Moriya; P. yedoensis Matsum.
var. angustipetala Chan S.Kim & M.H.Kim; P. yedoensis var. nikaii Honda; and, of course P. yedoensis var. nudiflora Koehne.
24Kawasaki (1993, 149–178) gives the most obvious solution to group them as hybrids under their maternal parent, the
Higan Cherry. Kawasaki Tetsuya (1929–2002) was an eminent field researcher on cherries, but did not graduate from Tokyo
University. His clear classification departing from five Prunus ideotypes did not get the recognition it deserves. In the
posthumous re-edition of his book the ideotypes were even removed.
Science in Context 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Later in the same year, after his daring statements, Koidzumi reported that Prunus sacra was in
fact not the missing link between the Jeju cherries and the Tokyo Cherry. Toning down the
discourse, he reported it to be a simple hybrid between the Higan Cherry and the Japanese
Mountain Cherry that had been planted in the temple by a gardener who had found it nearby
(Koidzumi 1932b). But Japanese researchers never quoted this paper by Koidzumi, as it could be
ignored in face of the exhilarating discourse that has been examined throughout my paper. For
centuries, gardeners have been selecting special cherries from among hybrids on the nursery and
in the forest. There can be various reasons for selecting these cherries, but they always differ
according to time, place, and cultural predilection. It seems to me that some Korean and Japanese
botanists have been eager to select hybrids from the Higan Cherry in the wild, or from an old
temple; nationalistic biases and present-day chauvinism made them arbitrarily select plants
resembling the Tokyo Cherry, and these botanists consequently named them in respectful Latin
and classified them as wild varieties or even species. Because botany, taxonomy, and genetics are
considered natural sciences, questions of correctness arise. But how can natural science define the
correctness of the King Cherry? And once the “correct”King Cherry is located on Mount Halla,
what should be done with the perhaps not so correct Natural Monuments, the King Cherry as an
endangered species, and the rest of this hybrid swarm on the mountain that confuses the beautiful
landscape of the correct King Cherry? In the end is all of this research not interfering with far more
urgent biodiversity research? The correct Tokyo Cherry is only relevant in historic respects and,
for some, perhaps in reverence to the respected professor Matsumura, or to the Nation’s Flower.
Since it is a clone we do not even need a type specimen. Should all incorrectly propagated Tokyo
Cherries, the genetically different ones procured from seed, be uprooted and burned?25
These two cherries are highly cultural and belong to the field of humanities, horticulture and
landscape business, but have been pulled into the field of natural science starting with an impurity
of standards around Matsumura Jinzō’s basionym in 1901.
Note: Names of Korean and Japanese persons are given family name first, followed by
given names.
Acknowledgements. This paper began with two Seoul National University student seminars on the subject of the Tokyo
Cherry and the King Cherry in spring 2016 and 2019. I would like to thank my students and colleagues at the university for
their support, especially Chang Chin-sung for attending the final seminar presentation with critical comments, Song
Youngkeun for help with sources, like Sem Vermeersch who also helped with romanizations of Korean, and Alena Kulinich
for help with Russian. Anonymous referees and the Editor brought in valuable comments and suggestions.
References
Ayba, Givi Grigorievich and Tatiana Alexandrovna Gulanyan. 2015. “Vasil’yev Aleksandr Valentinovich.”In: Abkhazskiy
Biograficheskiy Slovar’. Moskva: AbIGI-Sukhum, 194–195.
Ama, Toshimaro. 1991. “Nihon no ‘gijidentō’[Japan’s‘Fake Tradition’].”Meiji Gakuin RonsōKokusaigaku Kenkyū8,1–22.
Anonymous. 1945. “Haebang sok kanho [Sequel issue after liberation].”Byeol nara [Star country], no. 1, 15 December, cover.
Agricultural Society of Japan (ed.). 1895. Useful Plants of Japan: Described and Illustrated. Tokyo: Agricultural Society of
Japan.
Baek, Seunghoon, Choi Kyung, Kim Goon-Bo, Yu Hee-Ju, Cho Ara, Jang Hoyeol, Kim Changkyun, Kim Hyuk-Jin,
Chang Kae Sun, Kim Joo-Hwan, et al. 2018. “Draft Genome Sequence of Wild Prunus yedoensis Reveals Massive Inter-
specific Hybridization Between Sympatric Flowering Cherries.”Genome Biology 19 (127): 1–77.
Chang, Chin-Sung. 2000. “Why Korean Taxonomic Projects Fail Now: The Present Status and Operating Aspects of Herbaria
in Korea.”Bulletin of Seoul National University Arboretum 20:95–103.
Chang, Chin-Sung, Choi Ho, Chang Kae-Sun. 2004. “Hyeongtae hyeongjil-eul geungan-euro han Prunus sargentii complex
ui jaego: Sanbeonnamu-wa seombennamu-ui silche [Reconsideration of Prunus sargentii Complex in Korea].”Korean
Journal of Plant Taxonomy 34 (3): 221–224.
25Pooler (1999) on the celebrated set of Tokyo Cherries planted in Washington D.C., USA at the Potomac Tidal Basin that
has clearly various differing forms, resulting from propagation by seed collected in Japan. Also in Japan one may come across
variant forms, including weeping ones.
16 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Chang, Chin-Sung, Kim Hui. 2019. “Prunus serrulata var. pubescens (Makino) Nakai.”Flora of the Korean Peninsula.
Global Biodiversity Information Occurrence dataset. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/2005766463/https://www.gbif.org/
occurrence/2005766470/https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/2005766489
Chang, Kae-sun, Chin-sung Chang, Tae Yoon Park, and Mark S. Roh. 2007. “Reconsideration of the Prunus serrulata
Complex (Rosaceae) and Related Taxa in Eastern Asia.”Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 154:35–54.
Cheong, Eun Ju, Cho Myong-Suk, Kim Seung-Chul, Kim Chan-Soo. 2017. “Chloroplast Noncoding DNA Sequences Reveal
Genetic Distinction and Diversity between Wild and Cultivated Prunus yedoensis.”Journal of the American Horticultural
Society 142(6): 434–443.
Cho, Ara, Seunghoon Baek, Goon-Bo Kim, Chang-Ho Shin, Chan-Soo Kim, Kyung Choi, Youngje Kang,Hee-Ju Yu,
Joo-Hwan Kim, and Jeong-Hwan Mun. 2017. “Genomic Clues to the Parental Origin of the Wild Flowering Cherry
Prunus yedoensis var. nudiflora (Rosaceae).”Plant Biotechnology Reports (2017) 11: 449–459.
Cho, Myong-Suk and Seung-Chul Kim. 2019. “Multiple Lines of Evidence for Independent Origin of Wild and Cultivated
Flowering Cherry (Prunus yedoensis).”Frontiers in Plant Science 10 (1555): 2–16.
Darapisa, Charl Justine. 2019. “Location of Sampled Prunus Species in Jeju Island,”Landscape System Analysis Seminar,
student paper, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University.
Daston, Lorraine and H. Otto Sibum. 2003. “Introduction: Scientific Personae and Their Histories”Science in Context
16 (1–2): 1–8
Fedman, David. 2020. Seeds of Control –Japan’s Empire of Forestry in Colonial Korea. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Fujino, Kimei (Yorinaga). 1900. “Ueno-Kōen ōka no shurui [Species of Flowering Cherries in Ueno Park].”Nippon Engeikai
Zasshi 92:1–9.
Hara, Hiroshi. 1953. “Takenoshin Nakai 1882–1952.”The Botanical Magazine (Tokyo) 66 (775–776): 1–4
Harms, Hermann. 1919. “Emil Koehne (—Mit einem Bildnis im Text).”Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 36:
73–90.
Harn, Changyawl. 1965. “Halla-san jasaeng wangbeot mit chujeong yangchin-e gwanhan yeongu (II) [Wild Prunus yedoensis
and its Putative Parent in Mt. Halla (II)].”Journal of Botany (Korea) 8(1–2): 11–18.
Harn, Changyawl, Yung J. Kim, Suh Y. Yang and Hee J. Chung. 1977. “Wangbeot-ui giwon-e gwanhan yeongu 1. Halla-san
jasaeng olbeot, jaebae wangbeot mit sanbeot-ui jeongi yeongdonghyeong bigyo [Studies on the Origin of Prunus yedoensis
Matsumura. 1. A Comparative Electrophoretic Study on Wild P. subhirtella in Mt. Hanla, Cultivated P. yedoensis and
P. donarium].”Journal of Botany (Korea) 20 (1): 1–5.
Hayata, Bunzo. 1916. “Père Urbain Faurie.”The Botanical Magazine (Tokyo) 30 (356): 267–273.
Hiratsuka, Akihito. 2001. “Sakura wo sukue ‘someiyoshino jumyō60-nen-setsu’ni idomu otoko-tachi [Save the Cherries: The
Men who Challenged the Idea of the 60-year Life span of the Someiyoshino].”Bungei shunjū.2001(3): 158–9.
Hisauchi, Kiyotaka. 1954. “Koizumi Gen’ichishi no genboku ni sesshite [Lamenting the Death of the Late Dr. Genichi
Koidzumi].”The Journal of Japanese Botany 29(1): 29–30.
Hwang, Jeong-ju. 2007. “Jinhae gunhangje seonggyeok byeonhwa-e daehan yeongu [A Study on the Changes in the
Characteristics of Jinhae Naval Port Festival].”Thesis. Jinju: Gyeongsang National University.
Hyun, Jaehwan. 2019. “Blood Purity and Scientific Independence: Blood Science and Postcolonial Struggles in Korea,
1926–1975.”Science in Context 32: 239–260.
Hyun, Won-bok. 2020. “Park Mankyu.”Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Index?
contents_id =E0020671.
Iketani, Hiroyuki. 2013. “Koishikawa shokubutsuen no ‘Someiyoshino’[The ‘Someiyoshino’of the Koshikawa Botanical
Gardens].”Newsletter of the Friend Society of Koishikawa Botanical Gardens 46:1–3.
Iketani, Hiroyuki, Ohta Satoshi, Kawahara Takayuki, Katsuki Toshio, Mase Nobuko, Sato Yoshihiko, and Yamamoto
Toshiya. 2007. “Analyses of Clonal Status in ‘Somei-yoshino’and Confirmation of Genealogical Record in other cultivars of
Prunus ×yedoensis by Microsatellite Markers.”Breeding Science 57:1–6.
Innan, Hideki, Terauchi Ryohei, Miyashita T. Naohiko, and Tsunewaki Koichiro. 1995. “DNA Fingerprinting Study on the
Intraspecific Variation and the origin of Prunus yedoensis (Someiyoshino).”Japanese Journal of Genetics 70: 185–196.
IPNI. 2019. “Matsumura, Jinzō(1856-1928).”InternationalPlant Names Index. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard
University Herbaria & Libraries and Australian National Herbarium https://www.ipni.org/a/23052-1.
Institut de Recherche France-Asie (IRFA). 2020a. “Nécrologie de Émile Joseph Taquet.”Se Documenter Sur un Missionnaire.
https://www.irfa.paris/fr/notices/notices-necrologiques/taquet-1873–1952. 28 November 2020.
Institut de Rrecherche France-Asie (IRFA). 2020b. “Nécrologie et Biographie de Urbain Faurie.”Se Documenter Sur
un Missionnaire. https://www.irfa.paris/fr/notices/notices-necrologiques/faurie-1847-1915. and https://www.irfa.paris/fr/
notices/notices-biographiques/faurie-1. 28 November 2020.
Ishidoya, Tsutomu. 1929. “Someiyoshino-zakura no gensanchi –hatashite Chejutōnariya [The natural habitat of the
Someiyoshino Cherry: it really is Jeju Island].”Chōsen oyobi Manshū258 (May): 67–68.
Jefferson, Roland M and Alan E. Fusoni. 1977. The Japanese Flowering Cherry Trees of Washington, D.C., A Living Symbol of
Friendship. National Arboretum Contribution No. 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Science in Context 17
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Jong, Taehyon, Toh Pong-sup, Lee Hwi-jae (eds.). 1937. Joseon singmul hyangmyeongjip [Index of vernacular names of
Joseon plants]. Seoul: Joseon bangmul yeonguhoe.
Kakuta, Mitsuru. 1992. “Fo-ri- shinpu shokubutsu saishūnenpu [Abbé Urbain Faurie and an Itinerary Calendar of his Plant
Hunting].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 43 (1): 59–74.
Kaneko, Takafumi, Terachi Toru, Tsunewaki Koichiro. 1986. “Studies on the Origin of Crop Species by Restriction
Endonuclease Analysis of Organellar DNA. II/Restriction Analysis of ctDNA of 11 Prunus species.”The Japanese Journal of
Genetics 61 (2): 157–168.
Kato, Shuri, Matsumoto Asako, Yoshimura Kensuke, Katsuki Toshio, Iwamoto Kojiro, Kawahara Takayuki, Mukai
Yuzuru, Tsuda Yoshiaki, Ishio Shogo, Nakamura Kentaro, Kazuo Moriwaki, Toshihiko Shiroishi, Takashi Gojobori
and Hiroshi Yoshimaru. 2014. “Origins of Japanese Flowering Cherry (Prunus subgenus Cerasus) Cultivars Revealed
Using Nuclear SSR Markers.”Tree Genetics & Genomes 10: 477–487.
Katsuki, Toshio, Iketani Hiroyuki. 2016. “Nomenclature of Tokyo cherry (Cerasus ×yedoensis ‘Somei-yoshino’, Rosaceae)
and Allied Interspecific Hybrids Based on Recent Advances in Population Genetics.”Taxon 65 (6): 1415–1419.
Kawasaki, Tetsuya. 1993. Nihon no Sakura [Flowering Cherries of Japan]. Tokyo: Yama-Kei Publishers.
Kim, Chan-soo. 1998. “Wangbeonnamu-ui bunpo mit bullyuhakjeok yeongu [Distribution and taxonomic Study of Prunus
yedoensis Matsumura (Rosaceae)].”PhD Thesis. Jeju: Jeju National University.
Kim, Chan-soo, Lee Kab Yeon, Moon Myung Ok, Hyun Hwa Ja, Ihm Byung Sun, Kim Moon Hong. 1998.
“Wangbeonnamu-ui jasaengji mit hyeongtae byeoni [Natural Habitat of Prunus yedoensis Matsumura and its
Morphological Variation]”.Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 28 (2): 117–137.
Kim, Chan-soo, Kim Zin-suh. 2012. “Wangbeonnamu seongmok nokjisammok-eseo sammok sigi, oksin cheori mit sapsu
buwi-ga balgeun-e michineun yeonghyang-gwa isik sammongmyo-ui saengyuk teukseong [Effects of Cutting Time, Auxin
Treatment, and Cutting Position on Rooting of the Green-Wood Cuttings and Growth Characteristics of Transplanted
Cuttings in the Adult Prunus yedoensis].”Korean Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 30 (2): 129–136.
Kim, Hai Gyoung. 2011. “Beotkkot-eul tonghae bon geundae haengnak munhwa-ui haeseok [A Study on Modern Cherry
Blossom Picnic Culture].”Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape 29 (4): 124–133.
Kim, Jung-hwa. 2017. “The Origin and Evolution of Botanical Gardens in Korea.”PhD Thesis. Seoul: Seoul National University.
Kim, Sang-Bae (ed.). 2014. Korean Red List of Threatened Species. 2nd Edition. Seoul: National Institute of Biological Resources.
Kim, Woo-Gil. 1990. “Hanguksan Prunus sok singmul-ui gyetong bullyuhakjeok yeongu [A Systematic Study on the Genus
Prunus in Korea].”Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 20 (1): 65–79.
Kim, Yersu. 1976. Cultural Policy in the Republic of Korea. Paris: UNESCO.
Kim, Yun-sik (ed.). 1998. Wangbeonnamu-ui jasaengsiltae mich jasaengjong panbyeol yeongu bogoseo [Report on the actual
condition of the wild King Cherry Tree and its Identification as Native Species]. Seoul: Cultural Heritage Management
Bureau, Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Kitamura, Naofumi. 1979. “Urbain Faurie ni kansuru bunken [Literature on Urbain Faurie].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et
Geobotanica 30 (1–3): 93–98.
Kitamura, Shirō. 1954. “Koizumi Gen’ichi sensei wo tsuitōsuru [A memorial address for the Late Dr. G. Koidzumi].”Acta
Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 15 (4): 97–98.
Kitamura, Shirō. 1982. “Koizumi Gen’ichi sensei (1883–1953) wo omou [Remembering Professor Koizumi Gen’ichi].”Acta
Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 33 (0): 4
Koehne, Emil. 1893. Deutsche dendrologie. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.
Koehne, Emil. 1911/12. “Prunus yedoënsis var. nudiflora nov. var. (Originaldiag.).”Feddes Repertorium Novarum Specierum
Regni Vegetabilis 10: 507.
Koehne, Emil. 1917. “Die Kirschenarten Japans (mit kritischer Benutzung von E.H. Wilson :::).”Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Dendrologischen Gesellschaft 26:1–65.
Koidzumi, Gen’ichi. 1913a. “Somei-yoshino-zakura no jiseichi [The natural habitat of the Someiyoshino Cherry].”The
Botanical Magazine (Tokyo) 27 (320): 395.
Koidzumi, Gen’ichi. 1913b. “Conspectus rosacearum japonicarum [An Overview of the Japanese Rosaceae].”Journal of the
College of Science, Tokyo Imperial University 34 (2): 1–312.
Koidzumi, Gen’ichi. 1932a. “Zatsuroku - Somei-yoshino-zakura no tenseichi funmyōsu [Miscellaneous Records: Prunus
yedoensis Matsum. is a Native of Quelpaert!].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 1(2): 177–179.
Koidzumi, Gen’ichi. 1932b. “Katte-zakura.”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 1(3): 258.
Koidzumi, Gen’ichi. 1936. “Nihon shokubutsu no kenkyū[A Historical Sketch of Herbal and Botanical Investigations on the
Flora of Nippon].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 5(1): 1–26.
Korea Institute of Environmental Policy and Evaluation. 1998. Jeju wangbeonnamu-ui jasanhwa bangan-e gwanhan yeongu
[A Study on Plans to Make an Asset out of the Jeju King Cherry]. Seoul: Ministry of Environment.
Kuitert, Wybe. 1999. Japanese Flowering Cherries. Portland Oregon: Timber Press.
Kuitert, Wybe. 2007. “Cultural Values and Political Change: Cherry Gardening in Ancient Japan.”In Botanical Progress,
Horticultural Innovations and Cultural Changes edited by Michel Conan and Walter Kress, 128–145. Washington D.C.:
Harvard University Press.
18 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Kuitert, Wybe. 2021/2022. “Observations on the Tokyo Cherry.”Shakkei 28 (3): 2–8.
Kuitert, Wybe. 2022a. “Japanese cherry pride on foreign ground.”In The Politics of Street Trees edited by Jan Woudstra and
Camilla Allen, 135–148. Sheffield: University of Sheffield and Routledge.
Kuitert, Wybe. 2022b. “A Cherry Gardener in Tokyo’s Ueno Park.”Garden History 50 (1): 106–114.
Lafuente, Antonio and Nuria Valverde. 2004. “Linnaean Botany and Spanish Imperial Biopolitics.”In Colonial Botany -
Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World edited by Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, 134–147.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lee, Jung. 2013. “Sigmul yeongu neun minjogjeog gwaje? Ilje gangjeomgi joseonin sigmulhagja, Do Bongseob-ui Joseon
sigmul yeongu [Non-Imperial Botany? To Pong-Sup’s Studies on Korean Flora in Colonial Korea].”History and Culture 5:
89–123.
Lee, Jung. 2015. “Between Universalism and Regionalism: Universal Systematics from Imperial Japan.”British Journal for the
History of Science 48 (4): 661–684.
Lee, Jung. 2016. “Mutual Transformation of Colonial and Imperial Botanizing? The Intimate yet Remote Collaboration in
Colonial Korea.”Science in Context 29 (2): 179–211.
Lee, Tchang Bok. 1996. “Wangbeonnamu-ui jasaengji [Natural Habitat of Prunus yedoensis Matsumura].”Bulletin of Seoul
National University Arboretum 16:50–54.
Makino, Tomitarō. 1926. “Somei-yoshino toha darega meizeshi sakura no naka [As a Cherry Name, Who Gave Somei-
yoshino its Epithet?].”The Journal of Japanese Botany 3(1): 6–8.
Makino, Tomitarō. 1933. “Someiyoshino.”The Journal of Japanese Botany 8(8): frontispiece 3.
Makino, Tomitarō, Nemoto Kanji. 1931. “Nihon shokubutsu sōran [A Guide to Japanese Plants].”Tokyo: Shun’yōdō.
Masamune, Genkei, Suzuki Shigeyoshi. 1936. “Nihonsan sakurazoku no gakumei ni oite [On the Scientific Naming of
Flowering Cherries from Japan].”Journal of Taipei Society of Agriculture and Forestry 1(3): 316–318.
Matsumura, Jinzō. 1884. Nihon Shokubutsu Mei’i [Enumeration of Japanese plants]. Tokyo: Z.P. Maruya & Company.
Matsumura, Jinzō. 1895. Shokubutsu Mei’i [Enumeration of Selected Scientific Names of Both Native and Foreign Plants, with
Romanized Japanese names, and in Many Cases Chinese Characters]. Tokyo: Z. P. Maruya & Co.
Matsumura, Jinzō. 1901. “Cerasi Japonicae Duae Species Novae.”The Botanical Magazine (Tokyo) 15 (174): 99–101.
Matsumura, Jinzō. 1906. “Sakura no ki [Notes on Cherries].”TōyōGakugei Magazine 23 (301): 442–451.
Mito Sakuragawa Senbon-zakura Project. 2014. “Matsumura Jinzō- Nihon shokubutsugaku no paionia to sakura
[Matsumura Jinzō: a Pioneer in Japanese Botanical Science and Cherries].”https://senbonzakura310.jimdofree.com/2014/
09/01/%E6%9D%BE%E6%9D%91%E4%BB%BB%E4%B8%89-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E6%A4%8D%E7%89%A9%
E5%AD%A6%E3%81%AE%E3%83%91%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AA%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A2%E3%81%A8%E6%A1%
9C/ 22 November 2019.
Mitsuhashi, Hiroo. 2016. “Nihon no Somei-yoshino to Kankoku no Wanbonnamu (Ōzakura) no jugyō-Kankoku Koryo
daisei to kangaeru [Class Work on Japan’s Somei-yoshino and Korea’s King Cherry, Thinking About it with Korea
University Students].”Nihonfukushidaigaku kodomo hattatsu-gaku ronshū- Journal of Child Development 8(1): 35–44.
Miyoshi, Manabu. 1916. “Japanische Bergkirschen, ihre Wildformen und Kulturrassen [Japanese mountain cherries, their
wild forms and cultivars].”Journal of the College of Science of the Imperial University of Tokyo 34:1.
Miyoshi, Manabu. 1920a. “Kagakujōyori mitaru Nihon no sakura [A Scientific Study - Nippon-no-sakura].”Sakura 1(3): 2–12.
Miyoshi, Manabu. 1920b. “Untersuchungen über japanische Kirschen I [Research on Japanese Cherries I].”The Botanical
Magazine (Tokyo) 34 (407): 159–177.
Moon, Man-yong. 2015. “Someiyosino, wangbeonnamu, beojkkochnol-i: yeogsa . munhwawa gwahag-ui gwangye maejgi
[Somei-yoshino, Wangbeonnamu, and Cherry Blossom Viewing: the Relationship Between Science and History &
Culture].”Hanyang University Institute of International Comparative Studies, Comparative Japanese Studies 34:61–85.
Mori, Kazuo. 2013. “Takenaka Yōhakase to Iden-ken no sakura [Dr. Takenaka Yōand the Cherries of Iden-ken].”Lecture
Symposium Tama Forest Science Garden FFPRI.
Mori, Tamezo. 1922. Chōsen shokubutsu mei’i [An Enumeration of Plants Hitherto Known from Corea]. Seoul: The
Government of Chosen.
Mori, Tamezo. 1933, May. “Chōsen no sakura [The Cherries of Chosen].”Chōsen oyobi Manshū306:68–69.
Mukai, Yuzuru. 2014. “Somei-yoshino to sakura yaseishu tono kōzatsu to sono yōin [Interbreeding of ‘Someiyoshino’and
Wild Cherry Species and its Main Cause].”Shinrinkagaku 70 (2): 21–25.
Müller-Wille, Staffan. 2004. “Walnuts at Hudson Bay, Coral Reefs in Gotland: The Colonialism of Linnaean Botany.”In
Colonial Botany - Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World edited by Londa Schiebinger and Claudia
Swan, 34–48. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nakai, Takenoshin. 1915. “Præcursores ad floram sylvaticam Koreanam. V. (Drupaceæ).”The Botanical Magazine (Tokyo)
29 (344): 133–147.
Nakai, Takenoshin. 1916. Flora sylvatica Koreana V. Drupaceae. Seoul: The Government of Chosen.
Nakai, Takenoshin. 1927. “Chōsen shokubutsu no kenkyū[Research on the Plants of Chosen].”Tōyōgakugei zasshi 534:561–571.
Nakai, Takenoshin. 1935. “Koishikawa Shokubutsuen no Somei-yoshino no sakura no rōboku ni tsuite [About the Old
‘Someiyoshino’Tree in the Koishikawa Botanical Garden].”The Journal of Japanese Botany 11(5): 341–346.
Science in Context 19
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Nitobe, Inazō. [1899] 1900. Bushidō: The Soul of Japan –an Exposition of Japanese Thought. Philadelphia: Leeds and Biddle.
Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. 2002. Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese
history. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Ohwi, Jisaburō. 1932. “Koizumi Gen’ichishi: Tōa shokubutsu kōsatsu [Koidzumi’s Considerations on the Plants of East
Asia].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 1(1): 104.
Park, Mankyu. 1949. Uri nara singmul myeonggam [An Index of the Plants of Our Country]. Seoul: Chosun Kyohak Book
Co., Ltd.
Park, Mankyu. 1962. “Wangbeotkkot-namu balgyeon. Gwahak gwanjang ilhaeng singmul josadan. Ilbon kkot-ui wonsanji-
neun Halla-san [The Cherry Blossom Tree Discovered. A plant research team led by the director of the Science Museum.
The origin of the Japan’s National Flower is Halla Mountain].”Jeju Sinbo, April 20, p. 4.
Park, Mankyu. 1965. “Hangug wangbeonnamu-ui josa yeongusa [A Historological Survey on the Prunus yedoensis in
Korea].”Journal of Botany (Korea) 8(3): 12–15.
Park, Sang Mi. 2010. “The Paradox of Postcolonial Korean Nationalism: State-Sponsored Cultural Policy in South Korea,
1965–Present.”Journal of Korean Studies 15(1): 67–93.
Park, Sun Hong, Kim Moon Hong, Kim Kyung Sik, and Lee Sangtae. 1984. “Halla-san-e jasaeng haneun beonnamu sujong-
ui hwabunhakjeok yeongu [A Palynological Study of Some Prunus Species in Mt. Halla].”Korean Journal of Plant
Taxonomy 14: 153–159.
Pax, Ferdinand. 1918. “Nekrologie Prof. Dr. Emil Koehne.”Schlesische Gesellschaft für vaterländische Cultur 96:36–37.
Pooler, Margaret R. 1999. “Preservation and DNA Fingerprinting of the Historic Tidal Basin Cherries.”Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 17(4):185–189.
Rikuchi sokuryō-bu.1917/18. Chōsen gomanbun-ichizu: Sogipo, Harurasan, Daijōoyobi Maratō[Maps of Chosen, scale 1 to
50.000: Seogwipo, Hallasan, Daejeong and Marado Island]. Military maps. Seoul: Chōsen sōtokufu.
Roh, Mark S., Cheong Eun Ju, Choi Ik-Young, Joung Young Hee. 2007. “Characterization of Wild Prunus yedoensis
Analyzed by Inter-simple Sequence Repeat and Chloroplast DNA.”Scientia Horticulturae 114: 121–128. and its
corrigendum of 2015. “Corrigendum to ‘Characterization of wild Prunus yedoensis Analyzed by Inter-simple Sequence
Repeat and Chloroplast DNA’[Sci. Hortic. (2007) 121–128].”Scientia Horticulturae 190: 211.
Sano, Tōemon. 1998. Sakura no inochi –niwa no kokoro [Life of a Cherry is the Heart of a Garden]. Tokyo: Sōshisha.
Schiebinger, Londa and Claudia Swan (eds.). 2004. Colonial Botany –Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern
World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Svenska Linné-Sällskapet (ed.). 1986. Carl von Linné, Svensk Flora, Flora Svecica. Stockholm: Forum.
Takekuni, Tomoyasu. 1999. Aru Nikkan rekishi no tabi, Chinkai no sakura [A Journey Through Japan-Korea History, the
Cherries of Jinhae]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha.
Takenaka, Yō. 1936. “Someiyoshino-zakura no gensanchi ni tsuite [About the Native Habitat of the Someiyoshino Cherry].”
Shiseki meishōten’nen kinen butsu 11 (1): 27–34.
Takenaka, Yō. 1963. “The Origin of the Yoshino Cherry Tree.”The Journal of Heredity 54: 207–211.
Vasil’yev, Aleksandr Valentinovich.1957. “Flora Derev’yev i Kustarnikov Subtropikov Zapadnoy Gruzii: T. 3 [Flora of Trees
and Shrubs of the Subtropics of Western Georgia: Vol.3.].”Trudy Sukhumskogo Botanicheskogo Sada 10C:11–234.
Uyeki, Homiki. 1933. “Chōsen Shinrin Shokubutsutai [On the Forest Zones of Korea].”Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica
2(2): 73–85.
Wilson, Ernest Henry. 1916. The Cherries of Japan. Publications of the Arnold Arboretum, No. 7, 30 March. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yatabe, Ryokichi. 1890. “A few Words of Explanation to European Botanists.”The Botanical Magazine 4(44): 355–356.
Wybe Kuitert is a researcher, speaker, writer, designer, and university professor in landscape architecture and history. Having
studied in the Netherlands (Wageningen University) and Japan (Kyoto University, and International Research Center for
Japanese Studies), he was an honorary research fellow at the Botanical Gardens of Wageningen and Leiden Universities in the
Netherlands. Until recently he was a tenured professor at the Graduate School of Environmental Studies of the Seoul National
University, Korea. Presently he is a Chief Researcher at the Research Center for Japanese Garden Art and Historical Heritage
of the Kyoto University of the Arts, Japan. Wybe Kuitert is a Landscape Architect principal, licensed at the National Architects
Register in the Netherlands. The cherry collection of Noriko and Wybe Kuitert is for the most part kept by the Keukenhof
Tulip Garden and the Belmonte Arboretum in the Netherlands. http://www.wybekuitert.nl
Cite this article: Kuitert, Wybe. 2024. “Botany and national identities: The Tokyo Cherry,”Science in Context. doi:10.1017/
S0269889724000012
20 Wybe Kuitert
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889724000012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Supplementary material to:
Botany and national identities: The Tokyo Cherry
①
Of related interest are perhaps:
Kuitert, Wybe. 2022. "A cherry gardener in Tokyo’s Ueno Park" Garden History 50 (1): 106-114 (and
cover) ISSN 0307-1243
Kuitert, Wybe. 2022. "Observations on the Tokyo Cherry" Shakkei, The Journal of the Japanese Garden
Society 2021-2022, 28 (3): 2-8 ISSN 1368-4205
Kuitert, Wybe. 2022. "Japanese cherry pride on foreign ground" in Jan Woudstra and Camilla Allen
(eds.) The Politics of Street Trees (Routledge, University of Sheffield) ISBN 9780367516284
Kuitert, Wybe. 2021. "David Fedman Seeds of Control, Japan’s empire of forestry in colonial Korea"
Book review in Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 34(1): 228-232 ISSN 1225- 0201 (digital ISSN 2331-
4826)
②
Table: Cherry names and synonyms
In the sources used for this paper “Botany and national identities: The Tokyo Cherry” we find
numerous names for cherries. As the sources span an era of almost one and a half century.
Botanists from various parts of the world have named a species or variety in various ways.
Therefore we find numerous synonyms. The table below shows how I sorted out this problem. For
readability I have retained English names as much as possible in the paper.
Japanese Mountain Cherry (species)
Prunus serrulata Lindl.
P. serrulata var. pubescens (Makino) Nakai
P. serrulata var. spontanea (Maxim.) E.H.Wilson
-In sources as: P. pseudocerasus in Agriculture 1895, 134; P. pseudocerasus Lindl. var.
spontanea Maxim. in Matsumura 1895, 239; P. pseudo-cerasus Lindl. in Matsumura
1901; P. mutabilis in Miyoshi 1916; P. serrulata var. serrulata f. spontanea in Chang et
al. 2007.

Korean Mountain Cherry (species)
P. leveilleana Koehne
P. verecunda (Koidz.) Koehne
C. verecunda (Koidz.) H.Ohba
-In source as: P. sargentii Rehder var. verecunda (Koidz.) Chin S. Chang in Chang et al.
2004.
Ōshima Cherry (species)
P. speciosa (Koidz.) Ingram
P. serrulata f. speciosa (Koidz.) Koehne
C. speciosa (Koidz.) H.Ohba
-In source as: Takigi-zakura in Matsumura 1906.
Higan Cherry (species)
P. subhirtella Miq.
P. spachiana (Lavallé ex H.Otto) Kitam.
P. itosakura var. subhirtella (Miq.) Koidz.
P. subhirtella var. ascendens (Makino) E.H.Wilson
C. spachiana f. ascendens (Makino) H. Ohba
Sargent Cherry (species)
P. sargentii Rehder
C. sargentii (Rehder) H.Ohba
Tokyo Cherry (hybrid, cloned as garden plant)
Someiyoshino
Somei-yoshino-sakura
P. × yedoensis Matsum. ‘Yedoensis’
P. × yedoensis ‘Somei-yoshino’
C. × yedoensis (Matsum.) Masam. & Suzuki ‘Somei-yoshino’
-English synonyms: Tokyo Cherry, Potomac Cherry.
-Ambiguous synonyms are: Yoshino, Yoshino Cherry, C. yoshino
-In sources: P. yedoensis in Matsumura 1901; Sagura in Jong et al. 1937; Oang-pŏt-namu
in Park 1949; cultivated P. × yedoensis (including non-clonal seedlings) in Cheong et al.
2017; “Yoshino Cherry” = P. × yedoensis in Baek et al. 2018.
King Cherry (set of hybrids)
Wangbeonnamu
-In sources: P. yedoënsis var. nudiflora in Koehne 1911/12; P. yedoensis =
‘Someiyoshino’ in Park 1949; C. × nudiflora (Koehne) in T.Katsuki & Iketani 2016; wild
P. yedoensis in Baek et al. 2018; wild P. × yedoensis in Cho et al. 2019.
Mountain cherries on Halla Mountain as (pollen) parent
-In sources: Sanbeoj = P.donarium in Harn 1965; P. jamasakura in Baek et al. 2018; P.
serrulata/P.sargentii complex = P. serrulata var. spontanea, P. serrulata var.
quelpaertensis, and P. sargentii in Cho et al. 2019.
Bold are Accepted names in World Flora Online http://www.worldfloraonline.org. 21 February 2021

③
Is P. × yedoensis Matsum. a hybrid species ?
Note: P. × yedoensis Matsum. is considered a hybrid species. One may observe indeed that trees
of P. × yedoensis do not produce fruits when standing in a stand of P. × yedoensis only, it is
infertile in itself. In the field I have observed that P. × yedoensis becomes a mother parent with
fertile seeds when standing near to a Higan Cherry as pollen spender. There is indeed a research
that reports on this mechanism between these two taxa, indicating that among the seeds 25.8 to
39.6 percent give seedlings with normal growth (Tsuruta and Mukai 2019, Table 1).
By definition a “hybrid species” cannot produce fertile seeds with one of its parents as pollen
spender. The credibility of the taxon P. × yedoensis is at stake.
See: Momi Tsuruta and Yuzuru Mukai, 2019. "Fine mapping of a locus presumably involved in
hybrid inviability (HIs-1) between flowering cherry cultivar Cerasus × yedoensis ‘Somei-yoshino’
and its wild relative C. spachiana” Breeding Science 69: 658–664
Wybe Kuitert, February 2024