Latinized scientific nomenclature by system according to International Code of Plant Nomenclature (ICN) precise enough not to incur species vagueness is the botanical name. According to a report from Nature (2023), 34% of global medicines plants are misused wrongly through interscending region-to-region common naming such as Calendula officinalis with ≥3% anti-inflammation content that in North America; Tagetes erecta contained photo-reactive alpha-trithienes in Asia. Doses of more than 0.1% can cause dermatitis), and FDA data show that this type of abuse causes 1,200 annual allergic reactions. Correct botanic name tagging has lowered the rate of contention in the international trade in medicinal materials from 18% in 2010 to 5% in 2022, and the World Customs Organization (WCO) has shown that the speed of customs clearance of goods invoiced in a botanical name has been enhanced by 40% (the average duration of customs clearance has been reduced from 72 hours to 43 hours).
In drug discovery, a database of chemical constituents linked to a botanical name can reduce research cycles. NCI analysis demonstrated that articles published with the scientific name Vinca rosea (later reclassified as Catharanthus roseus) were 99% accurate, but using the common name “Vinca” provided a 47% rate of false positives, and thereby increased the team’s cost of screening time by 62%. In 2021, a pharmaceutical company mistakenly purchased raw materials in error between Echinacea purpurea (Echinacea, polysaccharide content ≥4%) and Echinacea angustifolia (narrow leaf echinacea, alkane amide content ≥0.8%) and experienced clinical trial failure and loss of $23 million directly.
Conservation depends on correct location of species by scientific name. IUCN Red List information shows that conservation initiatives for species with a botanical name are much more likely to succeed (78%) than those with a common name (35%). In Brazilian rosewood (Paubrasilia echinata), the tracing system of scientific names increased the efficacy of monitoring of logging by 90%, and Amazonian law enforcement agencies seized 12,000 cubic meters of illicit wood in 2022, a 300% increase over 2015. Australia’s Acacia pycnantha (Acacia acacia), whose scientific name is confused with African Acacia, has led to the wrong introduction of ecological restoration initiatives, with an epidemic of invasive species and more than $8 million spent on restoration.
International trade compliance is directly connected with the scientific name system. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) requires 78% of appendix species to be assigned a botanical name, and 93% of illegal timber seizures in the EU in 2023 involved missing or incorrect names. China Customs data show that in 2022, the rate of return of Aquilaria sinensis exports due to incorrect labeling with incomplete scientific names was 17%, and the customs clearance rate of enterprises using scientific names correctly increased to 98%.
In intellectual property, a botanical name is an important element of a patent application. According to WIPO, 72% of patent disputes on medicinal plants between 2018 and 2023 were because of the unclear description of the scientific name of the species. For example, the Indian Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), by linking the scientific name Curcuma longa (turmeric) to 28 active ingredient patents, was able to prevent multinational giants from squatting, preventing possible losses of $150 million. In 2020, a European company unknowingly crossed the legal red line by failing to harmonize the use of Cannabis sativa L. (industrial hemp THC<0.3%) scientific name, and products had to be withdrawn from shelves, with market value of 420 million euros.
Harmonized test systems rely on scientific names to make associations. The European Pharmacopoeia (EP) mandates that herbal raw materials be labeled with botanical name and site of harvesting, e.g., Ginkgo biloba L., folium (Ginkgo biloba L., folium), the standard of flavonoid glycosides is ≥24%, and the active ingredient content in products inappropriately labeled as bark extract is <3%. In 2022, the German BfArM test detected that only 23% of “St. John’s Wort” products were not able to distinguish between Hypericum perforatum (active species with active ingredient Hypericum ≥0.3%) and Hypericum calycinum (inactive species), and hence the efficacy rate was just 41%.
The scientific validity of a botanical name matters too. The use rate of plant genome data with scientific name identification was 89% in GenBank, while the reuse rate of common name labeling data was only 32%. In 2023, with the accurate collation of Ocimum tenuiflorum’s (holy basil) scientific name, researchers at Cambridge University found its genome had 2.3-fold higher copy number of terpenoid synthase genes than in Ocimum basilicum (sweet basil), efficiently explaining the former’s reason behind having antioxidant activity 58% greater. Speeded up discovery of novel antioxidants.