Accurate nomenclature is fundamental to taxonomy because it underpins biodiversity conservation, scientific communication, and the interoperability of biological data (Mace, 2004; Patterson et al., 2010; Pamarthi et al., 2025). Rather than functioning as static labels, scientific names reflect the cumulative outcomes of taxonomic circumscription, interpretation, and revision (De Queiroz, 2007; Franz and Peet, 2009). Historical floras and catalogs are essential archival resources because they preserve scientific names, associated vernacular names, taxonomic concepts, and nomenclatural practices in their original context (Nicolson, 1991; Franz et al., 2014; Buldrini et al., 2023).

Modern taxonomic systems prioritize nomenclatural standardization to ensure consistency across datasets and reference frameworks (Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2024). However, this process inevitably creates a gap between historical botanical literature and contemporary standardized checklists (Patterson et al., 2016). This gap arises because the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) governs the valid publication, legitimacy, priority, and citation of names but does not define the biological circumscription of taxa themselves (Turland et al., 2025). Consequently, a single scientific name may correspond to different taxonomic concepts depending on the author, period, and classificatory framework (Berendsohn, 1995; Franz and Peet, 2009; Franz et al., 2014). Despite its importance, the extent and patterns of nomenclatural discrepancies in early Korean botanical literature have not been systematically quantified.

To address these issues, we conducted this study as the first in a series aimed at reconstructing the historical development of scientific name usage and associated Korean vernacular names through the systematic analysis of major botanical publications. As the first case, this study examines Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip (Chung et al., 1937), a foundational work compiled during the early introduction of modern plant taxonomy to the Korean Peninsula. As one of the earliest systematic sources to record scientific names together with Korean vernacular names, this publication provides an important baseline for examining how Korean vernacular names were linked to scientific names and taxonomic entities in early Korean botanical literature.

Given its historical context, discrepancies between the names recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip and current treatments are expected. For scientific names, such discrepancies may arise from orthographic variation, inconsistent author citation, differences in nomenclatural interpretation, or shifts in taxonomic circumscription. In particular, the Korean vernacular names recorded in this work provide information on historical Korean name usage and help clarify how Korean names, scientific names, and taxonomic entities were associated at the time of publication.

To interpret discrepancies between historical and current scientific names, biodiversity informatics has developed conceptual frameworks that distinguish scientific names from taxonomic concepts. The Taxonomic Concept Schema (TCS) and Berendsohn’s concept of “potential taxa” provide approaches for linking scientific names associated with different taxonomic circumscriptions (Berendsohn, 1995; Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group, 2005). These frameworks move beyond simple one-to-one name matching and facilitate the reconstruction of taxonomic provenance, allowing historical taxonomic concepts to be traced within contemporary classification systems.

In Korea, the Korean Plant Names Index (KPNI) provides a regional reference dataset that integrates currently accepted scientific names, synonyms, currently recommended Korean names, and other Korean vernacular names (KPNI, 2026). KPNI is maintained by the Korea National Arboretum through a formal expert review process. The currently recommended Korean names in KPNI are selected from multiple vernacular names that have been used for a given taxonomic entity, in order to reduce ambiguity and ensure consistent communication in biodiversity inventories, statistics, conservation, policy, and applied contexts. These recommendations are not governed by the ICN and do not have nomenclatural force comparable to scientific names. As KPNI is organized according to currently accepted taxa, it does not provide detailed, record-level information on how each Korean vernacular name was historically associated with particular scientific names or taxonomic entities in earlier literature. Accordingly, a direct comparison between KPNI and historical sources such as Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip is necessary to evaluate differences between historical Korean name usage and currently recommended Korean names. Although global resources such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Backbone Taxonomy are widely used for scientific name reconciliation, they often lack the regional resolution required to interpret historical Korean vernacular name usage (GBIF Secretariat, 2026). Therefore, regional reference datasets and global databases should be used together to distinguish scientific name corrections, current taxonomic treatments, and differences in Korean vernacular name usage.

The objectives of the present study are threefold: (1) to evaluate the valid publication, legitimacy, author citation, and orthographic accuracy of scientific names recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip under the ICN; (2) to clarify how the recorded scientific names correspond to currently accepted taxa and how the associated Korean vernacular names relate to currently recommended Korean names; and (3) to examine changes in taxonomic composition, status annotations, and Korean name referents under the current taxonomic framework. Through this approach, we aim to clarify the historical relationships among scientific names, Korean vernacular names, and taxonomic entities recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip.

All scientific names and Korean vernacular names recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip were manually extracted from the original text and compiled into a structured database for nomenclatural and taxonomic analysis. The database retained the original records as they appeared in the historical work and included standardized fields for current taxonomic treatment, nomenclatural status, Korean vernacular name concordance, and status annotations such as endemic or cultivated status. The full dataset used for these analyses is provided in On-line Supplemental Table S1.

To avoid conflating historical records with currently accepted taxa, two analytical levels were distinguished. Analyses at the record level, including Korean vernacular name concordance, nomenclatural status summaries, and scientific name discrepancy counts, retained all 1,944 original records. By contrast, analyses under the current taxonomic framework, including comparisons of taxonomic composition and reassessments of endemic or cultivated status, consolidated records referring to the same currently accepted taxon.

Scientific names were evaluated for valid publication, legitimacy, author citation, and orthographic accuracy in accordance with the ICN. Nomenclatural verification was conducted through direct examination of original protologues, supplemented by consultation of the International Plant Names Index (IPNI, 2026) for nomenclatural status and bibliographic information. Current taxonomic treatment, including acceptance and synonymy, was determined primarily on the basis of the KPNI, which was used as the primary regional reference dataset for Korean vascular plants. However, KPNI was not treated as the sole authority for nomenclatural or taxonomic judgment. Additional verification was performed using Plants of the World Online (POWO, 2026), the Y-list (Yonekura and Kajita, 2003), and recent taxonomic literature where necessary, particularly for records whose current taxonomic treatment required confirmation. The cited taxonomic studies were used to support record-level interpretations of relevant taxa in On-line Supplemental Table S1, rather than to provide separate taxonomic discussions in the main text (e.g., Lee et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Jo and Chung, 2025; Son et al., 2025).

Korean vernacular names recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip were compared with the currently recommended Korean names provided in the KPNI. Each original record was treated as a historical association between a scientific name and a Korean vernacular name. When the taxonomic identity of a record was ambiguous or inconsistent with current treatments, the protologues of the relevant scientific names, historical botanical literature, and Japanese or Chinese names cited in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip were consulted as contextual evidence to infer the current taxonomic entity corresponding to the record. Because this step required interpretation of historical name usage and taxonomic identity, assignments were made through critical examination of relevant nomenclatural and taxonomic literature, and when necessary, taxonomic evaluation of the corresponding taxa. These comparisons were used to determine whether discrepancies reflected non-taxonomic Korean name changes, such as spelling, transcriptional, or lexical differences, and the later selection of a currently recommended Korean name, or taxonomic realignment of Korean name referents. For the summary presented in Table 1, each original record was assigned to one primary summary category: accepted name, synonym, misapplied name, unresolved name, invalidly published name, illegitimate name, or isonym. Accepted names and synonyms were determined based on current taxonomic treatments. Misapplied names were defined as scientific names that were applied in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip to taxonomic entities different from those to which the same names are applied under current taxonomic treatments. This category was treated as a matter of taxonomic application rather than nomenclatural validity or legitimacy under the ICN. Names were treated as unresolved when no reliable protologue or taxonomic interpretation could be identified. Invalidly published names, illegitimate names, and isonyms were assessed under the ICN. This primary categorization was used for summary reporting, whereas detailed nomenclatural notes and additional interpretive information were retained in On-line Supplemental Table S1.

Separately from the primary summary categories, scientific name discrepancy types were recorded to characterize the patterns of nomenclatural variation in the original work. These discrepancy types included author citation discrepancies; orthographic variants involving generic names, specific epithets, and infraspecific names; and rank discrepancies. Rank discrepancies refer to cases in which the rank assigned to a scientific name in the original work differed from its current taxonomic treatment. Because a single record could show multiple discrepancy types, these categories were not mutually exclusive and were summarized independently.

Discordant Korean vernacular names were classified into two operational categories: (1) non-taxonomic Korean name changes (S) and (2) taxonomic realignment of Korean name referents (T). The first category refers to cases in which the original and currently recommended Korean names differed in spelling, transcription, or lexical form while referring to the same or broadly corresponding taxonomic entity. The second category refers to cases in which the original Korean name and the currently recommended Korean name historically referred to different taxonomic entities, but those entities are now treated as the same currently accepted taxon or as part of the same currently accepted taxonomic circumscription through subsequent taxonomic revision. This classification was used to distinguish discrepancies arising mainly from Korean name usage or the later selection of currently recommended Korean names from those involving changes in the taxonomic correspondence of Korean name referents.

Comparative analyses were conducted between the classification system used in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip and the current taxonomic framework. Changes in the numbers of families, genera, and taxa were quantified after the original records were consolidated according to currently accepted taxa. Taxa indicated as endemic to Korea in the original text were compared with those currently recognized as endemic. The main endemic status analysis was restricted to records explicitly marked as endemic (ⓧ) in the original work. In addition, taxa not marked as endemic in the original work but currently recognized as endemic were separately identified to provide a complete account of endemic taxa under the current taxonomic framework. Taxa indicated as cultivated (栽) in the original text were compiled and compared with their current status in the KPNI. Cultivated records were consolidated according to currently accepted taxa, and their current status was categorized as cultivated, alien, or native where applicable. Taxa not marked as cultivated in the original work but currently treated as cultivated were also recorded separately to assess changes in cultivated status annotation under the current framework.

This study demonstrates that the plant names recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip should not be interpreted merely as outdated or erroneous nomenclature but as structured evidence of historical taxonomic concepts and nomenclatural usage. Although a substantial proportion of names correspond to currently accepted taxa or their synonyms, a considerable number represent misapplied names or non-standard usages. This pattern indicates that alignment between historical and current nomenclature is inherently partial. The predominance of discrepancies in author citations highlights the importance of standardized author citation under the ICN. In early botanical literature, author citation was often inconsistent, reflecting the absence of unified standards at the time. By contrast, orthographic inconsistencies in specific epithets and generic names are more likely attributable to editorial practices and publication conditions than to conceptual differences in taxonomy. These results indicate that nomenclatural discrepancies arose from both the later codification of nomenclatural rules and the publication practices of early botanical literature. A significant proportion of names were also invalidly published or illegitimate under the ICN, including nomina nuda, later homonyms, and superfluous names. These cases should not be regarded simply as errors, but as historically situated outcomes of nomenclatural practices before the consistent application of modern nomenclatural standards in regional floristic literature.

The observed discrepancies also reveal that differences between historical and current plant names are not solely nomenclatural, but also reflect changes in taxonomic circumscription (Berendsohn, 1995; Franz and Peet, 2009). The reduction in the total number of recognized taxa, coupled with increases in the numbers of families and genera, indicates a restructuring of classification systems over time. This pattern is consistent with synonymization, the exclusion of historical misapplication from the set of currently accepted taxa, and the refinement of taxonomic concepts, even as higher-level taxonomic boundaries become more finely resolved (De Queiroz, 2007; Franz et al., 2014). For example, broadly circumscribed groups such as Polypodiaceae in the original classification have been redistributed into multiple families under the current taxonomic framework, whereas Rosaceae has come to include lineages that were previously treated as separate families. The reassessment of endemic status further shows that historical distributional annotations do not correspond directly to current endemic status (Table 3). Although 201 taxa were marked as endemic in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip, these records correspond to 181 currently accepted taxa after consolidation according to currently accepted taxa, of which 56 retain endemic status. Conversely, 31 taxa not marked as endemic in the original work are now recognized as endemic, resulting in a total of 87 taxa currently recognized as endemic. This pattern indicates that endemic status has changed through both taxonomic revision and subsequent advances in distributional knowledge (Chung et al., 2023). Cultivated status showed a comparable but less central pattern of reinterpretation and is therefore treated here as supplementary evidence of changing status annotations.

The analysis of Korean vernacular names further shows that Korean name usage has changed not only in association with taxonomic revision but also through spelling variation, transcriptional differences, and the later selection of currently recommended Korean names. While a majority of vernacular names show concordance with currently recommended Korean names, a substantial proportion differed because of orthographic normalization, lexical replacement, or reinterpretation associated with taxonomic change. This pattern is consistent with previous observations on the historical formation and revision of Korean plant names (Cho et al., 2021). The 62% concordance rate indicates that much of the historical Korean name usage recorded in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip has been retained in currently recommended Korean names, whereas the 38% discordance rate shows that many Korean names have changed in form or taxonomic association. Most discordant Korean names represented non-taxonomic Korean name changes, including spelling or transcriptional differences, and the later selection of one of several Korean names as the currently recommended name. These cases indicate that many discrepancies between historical and current Korean names resulted from changes in Korean name usage rather than from changes in the taxonomic identity of the name referent. By contrast, cases involving taxonomic realignment of Korean name referents indicate that some Korean names were historically associated with taxa that are no longer recognized as distinct under current taxonomic treatments. For example, several taxa recognized in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip, including Prunus padus var. glauca, P. padus var. pubescens, P. padus var. rufoferruginea, and P. padus var. seoulensis, are now treated as synonyms of Prunus padus L. These cases therefore reflect changes in the taxonomic circumscription of the taxa to which the Korean names were historically applied, rather than replacement of the Korean names themselves (On-line Supplemental Table S1). These results show that changes in scientific name treatment and changes in Korean vernacular name usage did not always occur in parallel.

From a broader perspective, this study underscores the importance of distinguishing between scientific names and taxonomic concepts when interpreting historical literature. Frameworks such as the TCS and the concept of “potential taxa” provide useful approaches for linking scientific names to taxonomic concepts associated with different circumscriptions and for reconstructing taxonomic provenance (Berendsohn, 1995; Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group, 2005; Franz and Peet, 2009). In this sense, the discrepancies identified here should be understood not as inconsistencies to be eliminated, but as informative signals of conceptual change across time. The use of KPNI in this study does not imply that KPNI alone resolves historical plant name records or that Korean vernacular names have nomenclatural status comparable to scientific names. Rather, KPNI was used together with global taxonomic and nomenclatural resources to interpret record-level associations among scientific names, Korean vernacular names, and taxonomic entities in historical Korean literature. Integrating regional reference datasets with global taxonomic and nomenclatural resources is therefore important for reproducible interpretation of historical records.

A further nomenclatural implication is that four combinations, corresponding to three currently accepted taxa, can be attributed to Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip under current nomenclatural interpretation (Table 4). However, the original presentation of these names does not clearly indicate that the authors intended to propose new combinations. Rather, because the relevant earlier names were validly published and their nomenclatural histories can be traced, the names as treated in Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip can be interpreted under the current Code as validly published and legitimate combinations (ICN Arts. 41.3, 46.5). These cases demonstrate that historical compilations may acquire nomenclatural significance when earlier name usage, authorship, and publication history are critically reconstructed.

Taken together, our findings show that Chosen Sikmul Hyangmyoung-jip is not merely a historical checklist but a documentary source that preserves relationships among scientific names, taxonomic interpretation, and Korean vernacular name usage in early modern Korean botany. This study also represents the first contribution in a series aimed at systematically reassessing name records in major Korean botanical publications. By applying a reproducible procedure for comparing historical records with current nomenclatural and taxonomic treatments, and currently recommended Korean names, this study provides a foundation for subsequent analyses of major Korean botanical publications and for interpreting long-term changes in scientific name usage and associated Korean vernacular names.