Tea Knowledge
How to check local tea cultivar names
Separate the kinds of names
A local nickname, a registered cultivar, an origin and a product name can describe different things. Record the original wording, location and source before deciding whether two names refer to the same plant.
Follow the evidence
Consult the relevant agricultural authority, tea research body or cultivar register. Compare official names, aliases, publication dates and the basis of each description. A shared nickname may vary by locality.
Check the product
Ask the supplier about the stated cultivar, origin, harvest lot and supporting information, and compare the label. If the connection cannot be established, retain the original term and its uncertainty.
Keep a source card
Record spelling, source URL, date and conclusion. When sources disagree, keep their contexts visible and investigate rather than turning a familiar nickname into a confident identification.
The first step is classification, not translation
When a local name appears, copy the original characters or spelling, language, place, speaker or package, and date before “correcting” it. Then ask whether it may be a registered cultivar, breeding line, local nickname, origin, tea type, process, product name or seller shorthand. Several layers can appear on one package. Similar sound does not establish the same plant.
For example, Jin Xuan is the alias of TTES No. 12; the Tea and Beverage Research Station also records the breeding-line background 2027 and the name Er-qi-zai. Cuiyu corresponds to TTES No. 13 with line 2029 and Er-jiu-zai. These are direct institutional relationships. In contrast, TTES No. 20 Yingxiang has line 2022 as its female parent. Here 2022 is parentage evidence, not automatically another product or local name for Yingxiang.
Use four columns before drawing an equals sign
| Column | Record | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Original term | Characters, romanisation or dialect spelling without early correction | Replacing an unfamiliar word with a familiar one before searching |
| Context | Place, package, speaker, garden or article | Turning one local use into a Taiwan-wide rule |
| Name layer | Cultivar, line, parent, origin, tea type, process or product | Treating high mountain, Dong Ding or oolong as cultivar names |
| Evidence | Direct authority alias, local document or lot-specific supplier record | Equating names because pronunciation resembles another term |
Replace “equals” with three statuses: directly confirmed, contextually supported and unconfirmed. An authority page that explicitly lists an alias supports direct confirmation. A farmers’ association or local history describing one region should retain that region. A single shop page, social post or oral account should keep its original wording while the producer is asked. Evidence levels protect local knowledge from being flattened into one national answer.
Three numerical examples: cultivar number, line number and year are different
TTES No. 12 (Jin Xuan): 12 is the official cultivar number; 2027 is part of its breeding-line history, and the official material lists Er-qi-zai. TTES No. 13 (Cuiyu): 13 is the cultivar number; 2029 is the line background, with Er-jiu-zai listed. None of these numbers is a harvest year, elevation, roast level or quality score.
TTES No. 20 (Yingxiang): official material identifies line 2022 as the female parent and Qingxin Oolong as the male parent. That describes breeding parentage; it does not mean the finished tea was made by mixing two teas, and it does not by itself make “2022” a nickname for Yingxiang. A genuine local source using another term still needs its own place, date and evidence.
Likewise, Qingxin Oolong and Qingxin Damao are separate cultivars even though both begin with Qingxin. Dong Ding Oolong often describes a tea and regional craft context; it does not automatically supply one cultivar. For the individual cultivar, use the Qingxin Oolong guide. This page keeps the cross-cultivar verification method.
How to ask when the match remains uncertain
Make a supplier question specific: “Is X on this package a cultivar, a local name or a product series? What is the complete cultivar name for this lot? Is there a garden or batch record that supports the connection?” If the answer is “everyone calls it that,” ask where, since when and which plant or finished tea the term covers. This is not an interrogation; it gives a local word a correct address.
When sources disagree, do not choose the neatest answer immediately. The case may involve one name for different plants, several names for one plant, a historical change, dialect transcription or marketing language borrowing a local term. Place issuer, date, region and original sentence side by side, then seek cultivar traits, breeding records or lot evidence. Without direct support, write: “This source uses the term in this context; a direct relationship to the formal cultivar has not been established.”
A reusable name-source card
- Original term and full spelling: ______.
- Place, source, speaker or package: ______.
- Provisional layer: cultivar / line / parent / origin / type / product / other.
- Candidate formal name: ______.
- Direct supporting source and wording: ______.
- Status: directly confirmed / contextually supported / unconfirmed.
- One question and the person or body to ask: ______.
- Check date and archived URL: ______.
Worked example: a package says only “Er-qi-zai”
Copy the term before replacing it with Jin Xuan. Record brand, origin, lot and a package photograph, then search the Research Station’s cultivar page. The official material lists TTES No. 12 as Jin Xuan and includes Er-qi-zai and line 2027. The relationship between this alias and the cultivar can therefore be directly confirmed. Return to the package, however, and verify that this particular lot actually claims that cultivar; an official alias relationship does not prove the ingredients of a named product.
If the package uses “27-zai,” romanisation or a homophone, retain both the original and candidate spelling. A forum result alone remains contextual or unconfirmed until direct institutional or lot evidence appears. Also stop spreadsheet software from converting numerical nicknames into dates. The tea should not travel through time before the kettle has boiled.
Keep versions when old and new sources differ
An agency rename, moved page, updated English term or revised cultivar record can make two reliable sources look inconsistent. Do not keep only the newest URL and erase the earlier conclusion. Record page title, publication or update date, access date and wording, and state which version supports each decision. When a new record explicitly corrects an old one, mark the earlier statement as superseded rather than pretending it never existed.
Treat English and romanisation as source fields too. Preserve the formal Chinese name and use an authority or verified package English form when available. Without a standard English form, use a transparent romanisation and give the Chinese at first mention; do not invent a polished-looking cultivar name. Verification helps people find the same record. It is not a translation creativity contest.
Finally, separate the conclusion from the search history. The conclusion should state the relationship and confidence in one sentence; the history keeps rejected spellings, dead links and unresolved alternatives. This makes the reader’s answer concise without throwing away the evidence needed when the same nickname appears in another county or a later publication.
When applying this method to products in the current ABoxTik Taiwanese tea selection, read cultivar, origin, tea type and product name separately. Do not fill a field the page does not provide. Names travel well; the source card keeps their ticket.
Sources
- Taiwan Tea and Beverage Research Station: cultivars bred for partially oxidised teas
- Taiwan Tea and Beverage Research Station: tea-information FAQ
- Taiwan Tea and Beverage Research Station: tea cultivar characteristics
Sources checked 11 November 2026. Keep each local term within the context established by its source.