Cultivated plant taxonomy

Cultivated plant taxonomy is the study of the theory and practice of the science that identifies, describes, classifies, and names cultigens—those plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to intentional human activity. Cultivated plant taxonomists do, however, work with all kinds of plants in cultivation.

Cultivated plant taxonomy is one part of the study of horticultural botany which is mostly carried out in botanical gardens, large nurseries, universities, or government departments. Areas of special interest for the cultivated plant taxonomist include: searching for and recording new plants suitable for cultivation (plant hunting); communicating with and advising the general public on matters concerning the classification and nomenclature of cultivated plants and carrying out original research on these topics; describing the cultivated plants of particular regions (horticultural floras); maintaining databases, herbaria and other information about cultivated plants.

Much of the work of the cultivated plant taxonomist is concerned with the naming of plants as prescribed by two plant nomenclatural Codes. The provisions of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Botanical Code) serve primarily scientific ends and the objectives of the scientific community, while those of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Cultivated Plant Code) are designed to serve both scientific and utilitarian ends by making provision for the names of plants used in commerce—the cultigens that have arisen in agriculture, forestry and horticulture. These names, sometimes called variety names, are not in Latin but are added onto the scientific Latin names, and they assist communication among the community of foresters, farmers and horticulturists.

The history of cultivated plant taxonomy can be traced from the first plant selections that occurred during the agrarian Neolithic Revolution to the first recorded naming of human plant selections by the Romans. The naming and classification of cultigens followed a similar path to that of all plants until the establishment of the first Cultivated Plant Code in 1953 which formally established the cultigen classification category of cultivar. Since that time the classification and naming of cultigens has followed its own path.

## Distinctive characteristics

Cultivated plant taxonomy has been distinguished from the taxonomy of other plants in at least five ways.

- Firstly, there is a distinction made according to where the plants are growing — that is, whether they are wild or cultivated. This is alluded to by the Cultivated Plant Code which specifies in its title that it is dealing with cultivated plants.
- Secondly, a distinction is made according to how the plants originated. This is indicated in Principle 2 of the Cultivated Plant Code which defines the scope of the Code as "... plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind" — plants that have evolved under natural selection with human assistance.
- Thirdly, cultivated plant taxonomy is concerned with plant variation that requires the use of special classification categories that do not conform with the hierarchy of ranks implicit in the Botanical Code, these categories being the cultivar, Group and grex (which are only loosely equivalent to ranks in the Botanical Code). This feature is also referred to in the Preamble to the Cultivated Plant Code which states that "The purpose of giving a name to a taxon is not to indicate its characters or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate to which category it is assigned."
- Fourthly, cultivated plant taxonomy serves a particular community of people: the Botanical Code focuses on the needs of plant taxonomists as they attempt to maintain order and stability for the scientific names of all plants, while the Cultivated Plant Code caters for the needs of people requiring names for plants used in the commercial world of agriculture, forestry and horticulture.
- Finally, the difference between cultivated plant taxonomy and the taxonomy of other plants has been attributed to the purpose for which the taxonomy has been devised, it being plant-centred in the Botanical Code and human-centred in the Cultivated Plant Code.

## Scientific and anthropocentric classification

The key activities of cultivated plant taxonomy relate to classification (taxonomy) and naming (nomenclature). The rules associated with naming plants are separate from the methods, principles or purposes of classification, except that the units of classification, the taxa, are placed in a nested hierarchy of ranks – like species within genera, and genera within families. There are three classification categories used in the Cultivated Plant Code, the cultivar and the Group and the grex, but they are only loosely equivalent to ranks in the Botanical Code.

From the time of the ancient world, at least, plants have been classified in two ways. On the one hand there is the detached academic, philosophical or scientific interest in plants themselves: this groups plants by their relationship to one another according to their similarities and differences in structure and function. Then there is the practical, utilitarian or anthropocentric interest which groups plants according to their human use. Cultivated plant taxonomy is concerned with the special classification categories needed for the plants of agriculture, horticulture and forestry as regulated by the Cultivated Plant Code. This Code serves not only the scientific interests of formal nomenclature, it also caters for the special utilitarian needs of people dealing with the plants of commerce. Those cultigens given names governed by the Cultivated Plant Code fulfill three criteria: they have special features considered of sufficient importance to warrant a name; the special features are the result of deliberate human breeding or selection and are not found in wild populations (except in rare cases where the special features represent desirable part of natural variation found in wild populations that is not covered by a scientific name); it is possible to perpetuate the desirable features by propagation in cultivation.

The terms cultigen and cultivar may be confused with each other. Cultigen is a general-purpose term for plants that have been deliberately altered or specially selected by humans, while cultivar is a formal classification category. Cultigens include not only plants with cultivar names but also those with names in the classification categories of grex and Group. The Cultivated Plant Code points out that cultigens are: deliberately selected plants that may have arisen by intentional or accidental hybridization in cultivation, by selection from existing cultivated stocks, or from variants within wild populations that are maintained as recognizable entities solely by continued propagation. Included within the group of plants known as cultigens are genetically modified plants, plants with binomial Latin names that are the result of ancient human selection, and any plants that have been altered by humans but which have not been given formal names. In practice most cultigens are cultivars.

The following account of the historical development of cultivated plant taxonomy traces the way cultigens have arisen and been incorporated into botanical science; it also demonstrates how two approaches to plant nomenclature and classification have led to the present-day International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.

## Historical development

The history of cultigen nomenclature has been discussed by William T. Stearn and Brandenberg, Hetterscheid and Berg. It has also been examined from a botanical perspective and from the origin of the Cultivated Plant Code in 1953 until 2004.

The early development of cultigen taxonomy follows that of plant taxonomy in general as the early listing and documentation of plants made little distinction between those that were anthropogenic and those that were natural wild kinds. Formal botanical nomenclature and classification evolved from the simple binomial system of folk taxonomy and it was not until the mid-19th century that the nomenclatural path of cultigens began to diverge from mainstream plant taxonomy.

### 10,000 to 400 BCE – plant domestication

William T. Stearn (1911–2001), taxonomic botanist, classical scholar and author of the book Botanical Latin has commented that "cultivated plants [cultigens] are mankind's most vital and precious heritage from remote antiquity". Cultigens of our most common economic plants probably date back to the first settled communities of the Neolithic Revolution 10,000 to 12,000 years ago although their exact time and place of true origin will probably remain a mystery. In the Western world among the first cultigens would have been selections of the cereals wheat and barley that arose in the early settlements of the Fertile Crescent (the fertile river valleys of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates) in the Western Mediterranean. Food plant selections would also have been made in the ten or so other centres of settlement that occurred around the world at this time. Confining crops to local areas gave rise to landraces (selections that are highly adapted to local conditions) although these are now largely replaced by modern cultivars. Cuttings are an extremely effective way of perpetuating desirable characters, especially of woody plants like grapes, figs and olives so it is not surprising that these are among the first known plant selections perpetuated in cultivation in the West. Migrating people would take their plant seeds and cuttings with them; there is evidence of early Fertile Crescent cereal cultigens being transferred from Western Asia to surrounding lands.

### 400 BCE to 1400 – the ancient world: Greco-Roman influence to the Middle Ages

As early as the 5th century BCE the Greek philosopher Hippo expressed the opinion that cultigens (as we call them now) were produced from wild plants as the result of the care bestowed on them by man, a revolutionary view at a time when they were regarded as the special creation and gift of the gods. In devising ways of classifying organisms the philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) established the important idea of a fundamentum divisionis — the principle that groups can be progressively subdivided. This has been assumed in biological classification ever since and is congruent with the relatively recent idea of evolution as descent with modification. All biological classification follows this principle of groups within groups, known as a nested hierarchy, but this form of classification does not necessarily presuppose evolution. The earliest scientific (rather than utilitarian) approach to plants is attributed to Aristotle's student Theophrastus (371–286 BCE), known as the "father of botany". In his Enquiry into Plants Theophrastus described 480 kinds of plant, dividing the plant kingdom into trees, shrubs, undershrubs and herbs with further subdivision into wild and cultivated, flowering and non-flowering, deciduous or evergreen.

The utilitarian approach, classifying plants according to their medicinal properties, is exemplified by the work of Roman nobleman, scientist and historian, Pliny the Elder (29–79 CE) author of Naturalis historiae. "Cultivars" listed here are named after people, places or special plant characteristics. Most notable is the work of Dioscorides (ca.40–ca.90 CE) a Greek doctor who worked with the Roman army. His five-volume Materia Medica was a forerunner of the herbal which led to the modern pharmacopoeia. This work was endlessly plagiarised by later herbals including those printed between about 1470 and 1670 CE: it listed 600 to 1000 different kinds of plants including the cultigens Gallica, Centifolia, the rose of uncertain origin known as Alba and other rose cultivars grown by the Romans.

The first record of a named cultigen occurs in De Agri Cultura. written about 160 BCE by Roman statesman Cato the Elder (234–149 BCE) in a list that includes 120 kinds (cultivars) of figs, grapes, apples and olives. The names are presented in a way that implies that they would have been familiar to fellow Romans. The "cultivar" names were mostly of one word and denoted the provenance of the cultivar (the geographical origin of the place where the plant selections were made). Writers up to the 15th century added little to this early work. In the Middle Ages the book of hours, early herbals, illuminated manuscripts and economic records indicate that plants grown by the Romans found their way into monastery gardens. For example, in 827 CE the following herbs were mentioned in the poem Hortulus by Walafrid Strabo as growing in the monastery garden of St Gallen in Switzerland: sage, rue, southernwood, wormwood, horehound, fennel, German iris, lovage, chervil, Madonna lily, opium poppy, clary, mint, betony, agrimony, catmint, radish, gallica rose, bottle gourd and melon. It seems likely that aromatic and culinary herbs were quite widespread and similar lists of plants occur in records of plants grown in Villa gardens at the time of Charlemagne (742–814 CE).

### 1400 to 1700 – Renaissance, imperial expansion, herbals

The revival of learning during the Renaissance reinvigorated the study of plants and their classification. From about 1400 CE European expansion established Latin as the common language of scholars and it was adopted for biological nomenclature. Then, from about 1500 CE, the publication of herbals (books often illustrated with woodcuts describing the appearance, medicinal properties, and other characteristics of plants used in herbal medicine) extended the formal documentation of plants and by the late 16th century the number of different plant kinds described in Europe had risen to about 4,000. In 1623 Gaspard Bauhin published his Pinax theatre botanici an attempt at a comprehensive compilation of all plants known at that time: it included about 6000 kinds. The combined works of a German physician and botanist Valerius Cordus (1515–1544 CE) which were published in 1562 included many named "cultivars" including 30 apples and 49 pears, presumably local German selections. English herbalist John Parkinson's Paradisi in Sole ... (1629) lists 57 apple "cultivars", 62 pears, 61 plums, 35 cherries and 22 peaches.

With increasing trade in economic and medicinal plants the need for a more comprehensive classification system increased. Up to about 1650 CE plants had been grouped either alphabetically or according to utilitarian folk taxonomy – by their medicinal uses or whether they were trees, shrubs or herbs. Between 1650 and 1700 CE there was a move from the utilitarian back to a scientific natural classification based on the characters of the plants themselves.

### 1700 to 1750 – dawn of scientific classification

In 1700 French botanist J.P. de Tournefort although still using the broad groupings of "trees" and "herbs" for flowering plants, began to use flower characteristics as distinguishing features and, most importantly, provided a clear definition of the genus as a basic unit of classification. In Institutiones Rei Herbariae he listed about 10,000 different plants, which he called species, organised into 698 genera with illustrations. The establishment of this precursor of scientific classification vastly improved the organisation of plant variation into approximately equivalent groups or ranks and many of his genera were later taken up by Carl Linnaeus. There was still at this time no common agreement on the way to present plant names so they ranged in length from one word to lengthy descriptive sentences. As the number of recorded plants increased this naming system became more unwieldy.

In England the tradition of documenting garden plants was established long before Linnaeus' Species Plantarum starting with the herbals, but the most prominent early chronicler was Philip Miller (1691–1771) who was a master gardener in charge of the Chelsea Physic Garden in London from 1722 to 1770. New plants were coming into Western Europe from southern Europe and the overseas colonies of the Dutch, British and French. These new plants came largely to the botanic gardens of Amsterdam, Leiden, Chelsea and Paris and they needed recording. In 1724 Miller produced a two-volume compendium of garden plants called The Gardeners and Florists Dictionary or a complete System of Horticulture. The first edition was in 1724, subsequently revised and enlarged until the last and 8th edition in 1768 by which time he had adopted Linnaean binomials. For a while this publication was taken as the starting point for "horticultural" nomenclature equivalent to Linnaeus' Species Plantarum which is now taken as the starting point for botanical nomenclature in general. Miller's Dictionary was the first of many English horticultural compendia whose history has been traced by William Stearn.

### 1750 to 1800 – Linnaeus and binomial nomenclature

`In the early 18th century colonial expansion and exploration created a demand for the description of thousands of new organisms. This highlighted difficulties in communication about plants, the replication of their descriptions, and the importance of an agreed way of presenting, publishing and applying their names.`

It was the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus who finally put order into this situation as he attempted to name all the known organisms of his day. In 1735 his Systema Naturae, which included animals (the tenth edition became the starting point for zoological nomenclature) was followed by Critica Botanica in 1737, and Philosophia Botanica in 1751. But it was his most comprehensive work on plants, the 1753 publication Species Plantarum that formalised the name of a genus with a single epithet to form the name of a species as two words, the binomial thus making secure the biological system of binomial nomenclature. In these works Linnaeus used a third name as a variety within a species. These varieties included both wild and horticultural variants. The horticultural varieties were still written in Latin and some have persisted to this day.

Linnaeus had very definite and uncomplimentary views about cultigens, regarding them as inferior plants for the amusement of those people he disparagingly called anthophiles (flower-lovers); these were plants not deserving the attention of serious botanists. His views revealed both his prejudice, his stance on special creation, and his recognition of the difficulties entailed in cultivated plant taxonomy:

> "anthophiles ... practice a floral science all their own, grasped only by their devotees; no botanist in his senses will enlist in their camp."
>
> "All the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand, and the number now and always will be exactly the same, while every day new and different florist's species arise from the true species recognized by botanists, and when they have arisen they eventually revert to their original forms. Accordingly to the former have been assigned by Nature fixed limits, beyond which they cannot go: while the latter display without end the infinite sport of Nature."
>
> "... botany has been overborne by the system of varieties for long enough ... few, if any, agree as to what constitutes a species, or what a variety; ... I wish the system of varieties were entirely excluded from Botany and turned over entirely to the Anthophiles, since it causes nothing but ambiguities, errors, dead weight and vanity ..."

### 1800 to 1900 – global plant trade

The natural distribution of plants across the world has determined when and where cultigens have been produced. The botanical and horticultural collection of economically important plants, including ornamentals, was based in Europe. Although economic herbs and spices had a long history in trade, and there are good records of cultivar distribution by the Romans, European botanical and horticultural exploration rapidly increased in the 19th century with the colonial expansion taking place at the time. New plants were brought back to Europe while, at the same time, valuable economic plants, including those from the tropics, were distributed among the colonies. This plant trade has provided the common global heritage of economic and ornamental cultigens that we use today and which formed the stock for modern plant selection, breeding, and genetic engineering. The plant exchange that occurred as a result of European trade can be divided into several phases:

: : \* to 1560 mostly within Europe

: : \* 1560–1620 Near East (esp. bulbous plants from Turkey – "tulipomania")

: : \* 1620–1686 Canada and Virginia herbaceous plants

: : \* 1687–1772 Cape of South Africa

: : \* 1687–1772 North American trees and shrubs

: : \* 1772–1820 Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand

: : \* 1820–1900 Tropical glasshouse plants; hardy Japanese plants

: : \* 1900–1930 West China

: : \* 1930 Intensive breeding and selection programs

### 1900 to 1950 – the Botanical Code and cultigen nomenclature

As the community of people dealing with the cultigens of commerce grew so, once again, the divergence between taxonomy serving scientific purposes and utilitarian taxonomy meeting human needs re-emerged. In 1865 German botanist Karl Koch, who became General Secretary of the Berlin Horticultural Society, expressed resentment at the continued use of Latin for cultigen names. Many proposals to deal with this were made, perhaps the most prominent being the Lois de la nomenclature botanique submitted in 1867 to the fourth Horticultural and Botanical Congress by Swiss botanist Alphonse de Candolle who, in Article 40 stated:

> "Seedlings, half-breeds (métis) of unknown origin or sports should receive from horticulturists fancy names (noms de fantaisie) in common language, as distinct as possible from the Latin names of species or varieties."

This Article, making provision for the cultigens of horticultural nomenclature was to remain in the Botanical Code (with a minor amendment in 1935 suggesting the use of the letter 'c' before the horticultural name and antedating formal recognition of the cultivar) through 1906, 1912 and 1935 until the separation, in 1953, of the Horticultural Code, precursor to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Cultivated Plant Code). In 1900 there was the first International Botanical Congress and in 1905 at the second Congress in Vienna an agreed set of nomenclatural rules was established, the Vienna Rules, which became known from then on as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (now the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants). After World War II the responsibility for the Botanical Code was taken up by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy and meetings to discuss revisions are held at six-yearly intervals, the latest being in 2005.

In horticulture at this time there existed all the problems that had confronted botanists in the 19th century – a plethora of names of various length, written and published in many languages with much duplication. The period between 1867 and 1953 was an uneasy time in which American horticulturists and other groups in Europe, such as the specialist orchid community, made attempts to put order into this chaos within their particular group of interest and devising their own rules for naming the plants of commerce. Friedrich Alefeld (1820–1872), who used Latin variety names, in a monographic study of beans, lentils and other legumes distinguished three infraspecific taxonomic categories: Unterart (subspecies), Varietäten Gruppe and Kultur-Varietät, all with Latin names. In doing this he was probably laying the ground for the later establishment of the cultigen classification categories cultivar and Group. In conjunction with the Brussels International Botanical Congress of 1910 there was an International Horticultural Congress having a horticultural nomenclature component.

As a result of general dissatisfaction and a submission from the Royal Horticultural Society the Règles de Nomenclature Horticole was established. The use of simple descriptive Latin names (e.g. compactus, nanus, prostratus) for horticultural variants was accepted and so too were names in the local language – which were not to be translated and should preferably consist of one word and a maximum of three. This first Horticultural Code consisted of 16 Articles. With the intercession of a World War I it was not until the 9th Horticultural Congress in London in 1930 that the rules of a Horticulture Nomenclature Committee were agreed and added as an appendix to the 1935 Botanical Code. The rules established in 1935 were accepted but needed to be extended to include the cultigens of agriculture and forestry, but it was only a result of discussions at the 1950 International Botanical Congress in Stockholm and the 18th International Horticultural Congress in London in 1952 the first International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants was published in 1953. The American horticultural botanist Liberty Hyde Bailey was responsible for coining the word cultigen in 1918 and cultivar in 1923, the word cultivar only coming into general circulation with the new Code of 1953. The use of these two terms belies the multitude of classification terms and categories that had been suggested as designations for cultigens.

### 1953 – the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

The first Cultivated Plant Code (Wageningen), which was published in 1953, has been followed by eight subsequent editions – in 1958 (Utrecht), 1961 (update of 1958), 1969 (Edinburgh), 1980 (Seattle), 1995 (Edinburgh), 2004 (Toronto) and 2009 (Wageningen).

Following the structure of the Botanical Code the Cultivated Plant Code is set out in the form of an initial set of Principles followed by Rules and Recommendations that are subdivided into Articles. Amendments to the Cultivated Plant Code are prompted by international symposia for cultivated plant taxonomy which allow for rulings made by the International Commission on the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants. Each new Cultivated Plant Code includes a summary of the changes made to the previous version and these have also been summarised for the period 1953 to 1995.

## International Association for Cultivated Plant Taxonomy

Recent concerns have focused on international communication on cultivated plant taxonomy, organisation of international symposia, and general communication on topics of interest. In 1988 a Horticultural Taxonomy Group (Hortax) was formed in the UK and a parallel organisation, the Nomenclature and Registration Working Group of the Vaste Keurings Commissie in the Netherlands. One development promoting discussion was the newsletter Hortax News which was superseded in February 2006 by the first issue of Hanburyana, a journal produced by the Royal Horticultural Society in London and dedicated to horticultural taxonomy. This filled a gap left when the American journal Baileya ceased publication in the early 1990s. Another development was the launch, in 2007, at the Sixth Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants at Wageningen of the International Association for Cultivated Plant Taxonomy. Hortax also publishes Plant Names: A Guide for Horticulturists, Nurserymen, Gardeners and Students.

## Presenting cultigen names

Most cultigens have names consisting of a Latin name that is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants e.g. Malus domestica, to which is added a cultivar epithet, enclosed in single quotes e.g. Malus domestica 'Granny Smith'. The formation and use of the three classification categories (ranks) used for cultigens, the cultivar, Group and grex, is regulated by the ICNCP. Examples of acceptable ways to present cultigen names are given below:

: : Prunus serrata Sato-zakura Group

: : Prunus serrata (Sato-zakura Group) 'Ojochin'

: : Prunus 'Ojochin'

: : Flowering cherry 'Ojochin'

## Contemporary issues

Current challenges for cultivated plant taxonomists include: the use of large plant name databases; ways of dealing with the use of non-scientific names in commerce (known as trade designations), especially for plant labels in nurseries; intellectual property and plants; adapting modern technology, in particular molecular techniques, to the creation and identification of cultivars; maintaining germplasm collections of cultivars, including herbaria; the recording and registration of cultivars.

The ways in which the plant variation resulting from human activity is named and classified remains contentious. The replacement of the expression "cultivated plant" with the word "cultigen" is not universally accepted. The debate continues concerning the notions of ranks and taxa as applied to cultigens. Is it appropriate to call the highly modified transgenic products of human artificial selection "taxa" in the same way we do for the products of natural selection in the wild? To overcome this difficulty the term culton (pl. culta) has been suggested to replace the word taxon when speaking about cultigens.

Then, most "wild" plants fit neatly into the nested hierarchy of ranks used in Linnaean classification (species into genera, genera into families etc.) which aligns with Darwinian descent with modification. Choosing classification categories for cultigens is not clear-cut. Included among cultigens are: simple selections taken from plants in the wild or in cultivation; artificial hybrids produced both by accident and intention; plants produced by genetic engineering; clonal material reproduced by cuttings, grafting, budding, layering etc.; graft-chimaeras; selections from the wild; ancient selections of crops that date back thousands of years; selections of aberrant growth such as witches brooms; the results of deliberate repeatable single crosses between two pure lines to produce plants of a particular general appearance that is desirable for horticulture, but which are not genetically identical. The question remains as to whether the classification categories of cultivar, Group and grex are the most appropriate and efficient way to deal with this broad range of plant variation.

## See also

- Domestication of plants
- Horticultural botany
- List of florilegia and botanical codices
- Citrus taxonomy


Battle of Triangle Hill

The Battle of Triangle Hill, also known as Operation Showdown or the Shangganling Campaign (Chinese: 上甘岭战役; pinyin: Shànggānlǐng Zhànyì), was a protracted military engagement during the Korean War. The main combatants were two United Nations (UN) infantry divisions, with additional support from the United States Air Force, against elements of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army (PVA) 15th and 12th Corps. The battle was part of UN attempts to gain control of the "Iron Triangle" and took place from 14 October to 25 November 1952.

The immediate UN objective was Triangle Hill (), a forested ridge of high ground 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) north of Gimhwa-eup. The hill was occupied by the veterans of the PVA's 15th Corps. Over the course of nearly a month, substantial US and Republic of Korea Army (ROK) forces made repeated attempts to capture Triangle Hill and the adjacent Sniper Ridge. Despite clear superiority in artillery and aircraft, the escalating UN casualties resulted in the attack being halted after 42 days of fighting, with PVA forces regaining their original positions.

## Background

By mid-1951 the Korean War had entered a period of relative stalemate. With the resignation of Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in June 1952, General Matthew Ridgway of the United Nations Command was transferred from Korea to Europe as Eisenhower's replacement. The United States Army appointed General Mark Wayne Clark, commander of the US Fifth Army during World War II, to overall command of the UN forces as a replacement for Ridgway.

General James Van Fleet commander of the Eighth US Army had hoped that the change of commanders would allow him to reengage the PVA in a major campaign, but in an effort to limit UN losses during the peace talks in Panmunjom, Clark repeatedly overruled Van Fleet's requests for an authorized offensive into North Korean territory. In September 1952, Van Fleet submitted tentative offensive plans for Operation Showdown, a small-scale offensive drafted by US IX Corps as a ridge-capturing operation. The goal of the submitted plans was to improve the defensive line of the US 7th Infantry Division north of Gimhwa near Triangle Hill, pushing the PVA defensive line back 1,250 yd (1,140 m).

In September 1952, the negotiations at Panmunjom began to deteriorate, primarily due to Sino-North Korean insistence that all prisoners of war be repatriated to their respective original countries, regardless of their preferences. As a significant number of Chinese and North Korean POWs had been forced, tortured with death threats and expressed their desire to defect permanently to South Korea or Taiwan, the demand was met with strong opposition from the United States and South Korea. Feeling that the negotiations would soon fail, military commanders on both sides authorized numerous tactical plans as means of applying pressure on their opponents. In late September, the PVA High Command authorized the tactical plans which led to the Battle of White Horse Hill. On 8 October 1952, truce negotiations officially ceased. Clark gave his consent to Operation Showdown the same day.

## Prelude

### Locations and terrain

Sanggam-ryŏng, or Triangle Hill as it was named by the UN command, was a forested hill that appeared as a V shape when seen from the air or on a map. Hill 598 sat at the tip of the V and overlooked the Gimhwa valley less than 2 km (1.2 mi) to the south. From this apex, two ridges extended to the northeast and northwest. The ridge to the northwest is dominated by a hill nicknamed "Pike's Peak". The other connects to a pair of hills that had been dubbed "Jane Russell". A less-prominent ridge, named Sandy, sloped down to the east. Across the valley from Sandy stood Sniper Ridge, located at .

### Forces and strategies

The original plan for Operation Showdown called for simultaneous attacks on both Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge. One battalion from the US 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division would take Triangle Hill from Gimhwa-eup, while one battalion from the ROK 32nd Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division would attack Sniper Ridge along a parallel northbound route. UN planners expected the operation to last no more than five days with 200 casualties on the UN side, based on the assumption that maximum artillery and air support would be available. Before the plan could be carried out, however, the artillery and air assets for this operation were diverted to the Battle of White Horse Hill. Upon reviewing the situation, Colonel Lloyd R. Moses, commander of the US 31st Infantry Regiment, doubled the American strength just before the offensive.

On the PVA side, Triangle Hill was defended by the 8th and 9th Companies, and Sniper Ridge by the 1st Company of the 135th Regiment, 45th Division, 15th Corps. Qin Jiwei, commander of the 15th Corps, predicted that any major American attack would be one of mechanized infantry and armor directed at the Pyonggang Valley 20 km (12 mi) to the west of Triangle Hill. As a result, the primary formations of the 15th Corps, including the 44th Division, the 29th Division, one armored regiment and most of the Corps artillery, were positioned near Pyonggang. In an effort to compensate its inferior firepower, the 15th Corps constructed an intricate series of defensive networks, which were composed of 9,000 meters (9,800 yd) of tunnels, 50,000 m (55,000 yd) of trenches and 5,000 m (5,500 yd) of obstacles and minefields. On 5 October 1952, a staff officer of the ROK 2nd Infantry Division defected to the PVA, bringing with him a complete battle plan of Operation Showdown, but the information was not taken seriously by the Chinese.

## Battle

### Opening moves

At 04:00 on 14 October 1952, following two days of preliminary air strikes, the ROK-American bombardment intensified across the 30 km (19 mi) front held by the PVA 15th Corps. At 05:00, the 280 guns and howitzers of the IX Corps extended their firing range to allow for the ROK-American infantry to advance behind a rolling barrage. The concentrated bombardment succeeded in clearing the foliage on Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge, destroying most of the above-ground fortifications on the two positions. The intense shelling also disrupted PVA communication lines, eliminating all wired and wireless communications in the area.

As the US and ROK forces approached the PVA defenses, they were met with grenades, Bangalore torpedoes, shaped charges, and rocks. Unable to safely advance, US/ROK troops were forced to rely on close-support artillery to subdue PVA resistance, but the network of bunkers and tunnels allowed the PVA to bring up reinforcements as the above-ground troops were depleted. Although the 31st Infantry Regiment was equipped with ballistic vests in the first mass military deployment of modern personal armor; its 1st and 3rd Battalions nevertheless suffered 96 fatalities, with an additional 337 men wounded in the first attack – the heaviest casualties the 31st Infantry Regiment had suffered in a single day during the war.

The PVA managed to inflict heavy casualties on the attackers, but their defenses were starting to give way under devastating UN firepower. The defending company of Sniper Ridge was forced to withdraw into the tunnels after it was reduced to 20 survivors, and the ROK 2nd Battalion captured the ridge by 15:20. Despite the acquisition of Sniper Ridge, the attack on Triangle Hill stalled in front of the dominant Hill 598 as both US battalions suffered heavy casualties to PVA grenades. When only partial progress could be claimed by the late afternoon, US and ROK attacks subsided and preparation of defensive positions to face a PVA counterattack began.

To recover lost ground, the PVA 45th Division commander Cui Jiangong attempted a sneak attack with three infantry companies at 19:00. When flares broke the night cover, the attackers launched bayonet charges and hand-to-hand fighting ensued. The UN forces responded with heavy artillery fire, but the determined PVA assault troops marched through both PVA and UN artillery screens to reach the UN positions – a strange sight that made some American observers believe that the attackers were under the influence of drugs. The intense fighting prevented UN forces from receiving any resupply, and the UN defenders were forced to give up all captured ground after running out of ammunition.

### Taking the surface

Both Major General Wayne C. Smith and Lieutenant General Chung Il-kwon, commanders of the US 7th Infantry Division and the ROK 2nd Infantry Division respectively, relieved exhausted battalions daily to maintain troops' morale. On 15 October Smith ordered the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment and the 2nd Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment to be placed under the command of Colonel Moses to resume the attack on Triangle Hill. Similarly, Chung Il-kwon replaced the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Regiment with the 2nd Battalion, 17th Regiment. Later that day both US battalions captured Hill 598 and Sandy Ridge after meeting only light resistance, but the PVA tunnels and a counterattack by the PVA 135th Regiment prevented the Americans from advancing towards Pike's Peak and Jane Russell Hill. The ROK, on the other hand, were thrown back by a PVA counterattack after recapturing Sniper Ridge.

On 16 October Colonel Joseph R. Russ of the 32nd Infantry Regiment took over the operational command from Moses. He was also given the 2nd Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment to reinforce his right wing. After arriving on the battlefield, the 2nd Battalion, 17th Infantry managed to wrestle Jane Russell Hill away from the PVA on 16 October, but the Americans soon came under heavy fire from PVA machine guns in the valley below, and were forced to withdraw to the slope behind the hill on 18 October. The PVA continued to harass the US positions with small raiding parties and grenade barrages throughout that night. The ROK fared somewhat better, as a joint attack by 2nd Battalion, 17th Regiment and the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Regiment captured Sniper Ridge and held it against subsequent PVA counterattacks. For the first time since the combat began, UN forces had gained firm control of the surface, with the exception of Pike's Peak. On the afternoon of 17 October the 3rd Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment relieved the 2nd Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment on the left wing, while the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment was withdrawn from the pacified center.

For Qin Jiwei, the lack of functioning communication networks and accurate intelligence prevented him from responding to the UN assaults. Because of his indecision, the 45th Division also received no artillery support against the UN attacks. In the face of devastating UN firepower, the PVA defenders suffered 500 casualties per day during the initial UN onslaught. On 17 October after learning that more than 10 PVA infantry companies were rendered combat ineffective, Cui Jiangong committed the remaining six infantry companies to a last-ditch counterattack. Aided by 44 large-caliber guns and a regiment of BM-13 rocket launchers, the elite 8th Company of the 134th Regiment attacked from the tunnels under Hill 598 while the other five infantry companies attacked across open ground at dusk on 19 October. Their left wing drove the ROK off Sniper Ridge, but the US defenders on Triangle Hill held firm. At daybreak on 20 October UN firepower regained the upper hand and the PVA were forced back into the tunnels after suffering heavy casualties. By the time Smith replaced the US 17th Infantry Regiment with the 32nd Infantry Regiment on the afternoon of 20 October, Qin Jiwei received reports that the 45th Division was completely decimated. The PVA attacked Hill 598 again on the night of 23 October with two infantry companies, but the well-entrenched US troops beat back the attack with little difficulty.

After suffering over 4,000 casualties in ten days, the failure of the last attack ended the 45th Division's role as the only combatant on the PVA side. The UN forces had gained strong control over most of the area, with the remaining PVA defenders trapped in tunnels under the UN positions. Despite the initial setbacks, Deng Hua, acting commander of the PVA, considered the situation a golden opportunity to bleed the US military white. In the strategy meeting held on the evening of 25 October, the 15th Corps was ordered to retake the two hills regardless of the cost.

### Interlude

Van Fleet decided to rest the US 7th Infantry Division on 25 October, thus sidestepping the PVA intention of inflicting additional casualties on the Americans. The ROK 31st Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division would take over the Triangle Hill area while the ROK 17th Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division maintained control of Sniper Ridge. On the same day, fresh PVA reinforcements were converging on the Kimhwa front. The PVA High Command ordered the 12th Corps to be placed under the command of the 15th Corps and Qin Jiwei ordered the 86th and 87th Regiments of the 29th Division to link up with the 45th Division for a new counterattack. The 45th Division also received 1,200 new recruits to reconstitute 13 of its infantry companies. About 67 heavy guns and one regiment of anti-aircraft artillery were made available to support the upcoming counterattack. All PVA reinforcements were focused on Triangle Hill, with Sniper Ridge considered secondary.

Over the next five days, the ROK 31st Regiment was involved in a bitter struggle with the PVA defenders underground. The PVA 45th Division had also infiltrated small units into UN positions every night to resupply the trapped units and to evacuate the wounded, causing heavy casualties among the PVA logistics and medical units. As there was no battalion level combat between 20 and 29 October, the PVA were able to gather their strength for a decisive blow.

### Escalation

Before the start of the battle, Qin Jiwei had worried that Van Fleet would try to lure the PVA forces around Triangle Hill, with the real blow directed towards the Pyonggang Valley. To counter this possibility, the 44th Division and the 85th Regiment, 29th Division had been conducting preemptive attacks on Jackson Heights since early October. From mid-October, the 44th Division increased the strength of its attacks in an effort to relieve pressure from Triangle Hill, and the battle of attrition that was witnessed over Triangle Hill had also developed at Jackson Heights.

At noon on 30 October, the 15th Corps bombarded the ROK with 133 large-caliber guns, 22 rocket launchers and 30 120 mm heavy mortars in the largest Chinese artillery operation of the war. When the bombardment ended at midnight, 10 infantry companies from the 45th and the 29th Divisions swarmed over the ROK 31st Regiment's positions and pushed the ROK off the summit. In the aftermath of the fighting, only 175 ROK soldiers survived the onslaught out of the three defending infantry companies. With the PVA 91st Regiment, 31st Division, 12th Corps, arriving as reinforcement on 1 November, the PVA forces chased the remaining ROK defenders off Jane Russell Hill and beat off the subsequent counterattack. Responding to the losses, US IX Corps ordered the 30th Infantry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division to take back Triangle Hill on 31 October. The ROK launched continuous attacks for the next five days to no avail. Although the ROK failed to recapture the hill, the resulting heavy casualties forced the PVA to call in the 93rd Regiment, 31st Division as reinforcement on 5 November. On the same day, Lieutenant General Reuben E. Jenkins, commander of US IX Corps, suspended further attacks on Triangle Hill to prevent more casualties and to protect Sniper Ridge.

As IX Corps gave up on Triangle Hill, the PVA 31st Division, 12th Corps was in position to take back Sniper Ridge. Under the cover of inclement weather, an assault was launched by the 92nd Regiment at 16:00 on 11 November. The PVA soon drove off the defending ROK 1st Battalion, 32nd Regiment, but Chung Il-kwon replied with a counterattack by the ROK 17th Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division at dawn on 12 November. After two hours of fighting, the 1st Battalion, 17th Regiment recaptured two-thirds of Sniper Ridge and inflicted heavy casualties on the PVA 92nd Regiment. The 31st Division relieved the 92nd Regiment with its 93rd Regiment to launch another assault on 14 November, but the ROK 17th Regiment responded by committing all units to blunt the attack. By 17 November, with the help of the ROK 1st Field Artillery Group, the ROK 2nd Battalion returned to the 1st Battalion's original position after a two-hour battle. Undeterred by heavy casualties, the PVA 106th Regiment, 34th Division, 12th Corps relieved the weakened 93rd Regiment during the night of 18 November. For the next six days, 'seesaw' fighting continued on Sniper Ridge. By 25 November the ROK 2nd Infantry Division was relieved by the ROK 9th Infantry Division on Sniper Ridge and the fighting finally died down.

### Conclusion

The high numbers of UN casualties and pressure from Clark made Van Fleet break off Operation Showdown on 28 November and thus end the Battle of Triangle Hill. A few days later, the PVA 34th Division and the ROK 9th Infantry Division were engaged in a seesaw battle on Sniper Ridge on 2–3 December, but it failed to produce any territorial gains for either side. On 15 December, with the PVA 29th Division taking over the control of the battlefield from the 34th Division, the 12th Corps withdrew from the area and the 15th Corps settled back to the status quo prior to 14 October.

## Aftermath

The Battle of Triangle Hill was the biggest and bloodiest contest of 1952. After 42 days of heavy fighting, the Eighth Army had failed to gain two hill masses, its original goal. For the PVA, on the other hand, not only did the 15th Corps stop the UN attacks at Triangle Hill, the assaults conducted by the 44th Division on the Pyonggang front also resulted in Jackson Heights' capture on 30 November. Although the PVA had suffered 11,500 casualties with many units suffering very many losses during the battle, its ability to sustain such losses had slowly exhausted the US Eighth Army over two months of attrition. The PVA High Command viewed the victory as vindication that attrition was an effective strategy against the UN forces, while the PVA became more aggressive in the armistice negotiations and on the battlefield. The high UN casualties forced Clark to suspend any upcoming offensive operations involving more than one battalion, preventing any big UN offensives for the rest of the war. Clark and US President Harry S. Truman later confided that the battle was a serious blow to UN morale. As for the ROK, the modest UN gain on Sniper Ridge had convinced them that they were now capable of conducting independent offensive operations, even though the American advisers were less than impressed with their performance during the course of the battle.

Despite its impact and scale, the Battle of Triangle Hill is one of the least known episodes of the Korean War within the Western media. For the Chinese, the costly victory presented an opportunity to promote the value of endurance and sacrifice. The courage demonstrated by the PVA soldiers at Triangle Hill was repeatedly glorified in various forms of media, including several major motion pictures. Qin Jiwei was also celebrated as the hero of Shangganling and eventually rose to become the Minister of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress. The 15th Corps became one of the most prestigious units within the PLA, and the PLAAF selected the 15th Corps to become China's first airborne corps in 1961. It remains the most elite corps-size unit in China today.

## See also

- Huang Jiguang
- 1952 United States presidential election

Battle of the Korean War

Battles and operations of the Korean War in 1952

Battles of the Korean War involving China

Battles of the Korean War involving Colombia

Battles of the Korean War involving Ethiopia

Battles of the Korean War involving South Korea

Battles of the Korean War involving the United States


New York State Route 23

New York State Route 23 (NY 23) is an east–west state highway in the eastern portion of New York in the United States. It extends for 156.15 miles (251.30 km) from an intersection with NY 26 in the Central New York town of Cincinnatus in Cortland County to the Massachusetts state line in the Berkshire Mountains, where it continues east as that state's Route 23. Along the way, it passes through many communities, including the cities of Norwich and Oneonta. Outside of the communities, the route serves largely rural areas of the state and traverses the Catskill Mountains in the state's Central New York Region. NY 23 crosses the Hudson River at Catskill via the Rip Van Winkle Bridge.

Sections of what is now NY 23 were part of unsigned legislative routes as early as 1908; however, NY 23 itself was not assigned until 1924. At the time, the route extended from Oneonta to Massachusetts and followed a slightly different alignment from Cairo to Claverack via Hudson that took the route along modern County Route 23B (CR 23B) in eastern Greene County. NY 23 was extended west to Norwich in the mid-1920s and to NY 26 in northwestern Chenango County in 1930. The route was gradually moved onto its current alignment between Cairo and Claverack in the 1950s and 1960s, and realigned on its western end in 1984 to serve Cortland County.

## Route description

NY 23 has three distinct sections: its western third in Central New York and the Central New York Region (formerly Leatherstocking), the middle in the Catskills, and east of the Hudson River. Most of the route is maintained by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT); however, some sections are either locally maintained or owned by other agencies. In the city of Norwich, NY 23 is entirely city-owned and maintained. Farther east in the city of Oneonta, the route is city-maintained from the western city line to James F. Lettis Highway. Finally, the Rip Van Winkle Bridge and its approaches are maintained by the New York State Bridge Authority (NYSBA).

### Central New York

The highway begins at a junction with NY 26 in Cincinnatus, a town in eastern Cortland County. It heads east across the Otselic River and through the hamlet of Lower Cincinnatus before curving to the northeast and crossing into Chenango County very soon afterward. Across the county line, it continues northeast through a lightly developed valley surrounding Brakel Creek to the Pharsalia State Wildlife Management Area, where it connects with CR 42, a highway that was once part of NY 23. From here, the route heads southeastward along another valley, this one surrounding Canasawacta Creek, to the city of Norwich, the county seat of Chenango County. It heads east–west across the city on Pleasant and Rexford streets, passing through mostly residential areas and intersecting with NY 12 at Broad Street.

On the eastern fringe of Norwich, NY 23 passes over the Chenango River and leaves the valley holding the river and the city, utilizing a gap in the valley wall formed by Ransford Creek. The waterway ends shortly afterward; however, the route continues on, winding its way eastward into the town of New Berlin and the small hamlet of South New Berlin, situated in another valley surrounding the Unadilla River. Here, it connects to NY 8, another major north–south route. The route crosses the river just east of South New Berlin, putting it into the equally hilly and rural Otsego County. After 6.5 miles (10.5 km) of isolated areas, NY 23 encounters the village of Morris, the first of several villages along the route. In the village center, it briefly joins NY 51 along Morris' main street.

Beyond Morris, the route continues in an easterly direction with a generally southern trend through rolling farmland until its turns south again at the Laurens hamlet of West Laurens. A brief easterly turn 5 miles (8 km) later at West Oneonta takes it across Otego Creek to a junction with NY 205 on the eastern side of the creek's valley. NY 23 joins NY 205 here, and the two highways enter the western outskirts of the nearby city of Oneonta. At Chestnut Street, the first intersection that the route has in the city's vicinity, NY 23 leaves NY 205 to follow Chestnut Street. While NY 205 continues south toward the National Soccer Hall of Fame, NY 23 heads east toward downtown Oneonta. Just one block later, however, it meets NY 7, which comes in from the southwest on Oneida Street. NY 7 turns east at this point to follow NY 23 into the city limits.

The two routes serve as Oneonta's main street, following Chestnut and Main streets across the city's western and central areas. Along the way, NY 7 and NY 23 pass Hartwick College and serve Oneonta's central business district. NY 23 breaks from NY 7 just northeast of downtown to follow James F. Lettis Highway, a four-lane divided highway, south into the southern half of the city. As it heads south on the arterial, it connects to Interstate 88 (I-88) at an interchange on the northern bank of the Susquehanna River. NY 28—which overlaps with I-88 from Oneonta to exit 17 northeast of the city—leaves the freeway here, following NY 23 across the river to a large commercial district on the south bank. NY 28 leaves NY 23 here to proceed to the southwest while NY 23 goes eastward past several large strip malls and big-box retailers on its way out of both Oneonta and Otsego County.

### Catskills

In the adjacent Delaware County, NY 23 initially follows a generally easterly routing through the Charlotte Creek valley. Here, the land gets more forested and the number of houses decrease as it crosses the county. After Davenport, a hamlet 8 miles (13 km) east of Oneonta, the road begins to climb onto the Catskill Plateau. By the time it intersects NY 10 at the village of Stamford, it has already reached an elevation of 1,820 feet (555 m) above sea level. Not far to the east of the NY 10 junction, it crosses the West Branch of the Delaware River, by this point a small brook as the river's source is located just 1 mile (1.6 km) to the north. It maintains this elevation during a brief, 2.5-mile (4.0 km) foray into Schoharie County that leads the route around a pair of 3,000-foot (914 m) mountains situated south of the county line.

Elevation drops slightly upon reaching the hamlet of Grand Gorge within the town of Roxbury, located just above a small pond alongside NY 30 that gives rise to the Delaware's East Branch. NY 23 intersects NY 30 in the hamlet's center before making a sharp bend to the south as it approaches the Schoharie Reservoir, located 3 miles (5 km) southeast of Grand Gorge. The route passes by the reservoir's southern tip before it enters Greene County and the town of Prattsville. Just inside the county, a bridge carries the highway over Schoharie Creek and into the next community, the hamlet of Prattsville. Pratt Rock, a series of rock carvings depicting the life of Zadock Pratt—the tanner and politician who lent his name to the town—is located just east of the hamlet.

Southeast of Prattsville hamlet, NY 23A splits off from NY 23 to continue along Schoharie Creek while the latter climbs in elevation again along Batavia Kill. Shortly past Red Falls, all crossings of the creek come to mark the Blue Line that delineates the Catskill Park. The route remains to the north of the creek even as it passes the Windham Mountain ski area and NY 296 comes in from the south. However, it crosses it several times and is within the park as it reaches its highest point, 1,940 feet (591 m) at the pass next to Windham High Peak where the Long Path crosses the road. From here, NY 23 begins a long descent down the Catskill Escarpment, losing most of the elevation it had gained since leaving Oneonta. As it does so, the route provides sweeping, panoramic views of the Capital District and points north, east and west. Along this stretch is Five State Lookout, a vista providing views of five states and four mountain ranges, including the Adirondack foothills and Green Mountains in Vermont.

Having reached the floor of the Hudson Valley, NY 23 assumes a southeast-trending route through the town of Cairo. It comes close to the hamlet of Cairo, but bypasses it on a four-lane divided highway that takes it around the northern fringe of the community. As it runs around Cairo, the route connects to NY 145 and briefly overlaps NY 32, the major north–south state route on the west side of the Hudson River. NY 23 continues as a divided highway through mostly forested areas to the town of Catskill, where it crosses Catskill Creek and has an indirect intersection with the New York State Thruway (I-87). Not far to the southeast is the village of Catskill, the county seat of Greene County. NY 23 bypasses this community as well, connecting to U.S. Route 9W (US 9W) and NY 385 at junctions in lightly populated areas north of the village prior to crossing the Hudson River on the Rip Van Winkle Bridge.

### East of the Hudson

Once across the bridge and into Columbia County, the highway encounters NY 9G near the Olana State Historic Site in western Greenport. The two highways briefly overlap until NY 9G continues north with NY 23B to follow NY 23's old course into and through the city of Hudson. NY 23 continues to the southeast, bypassing Hudson well to the south and serving Columbia–Greene Community College, located in an otherwise forested area of Greenport. After 2 miles (3.2 km), the route meets US 9 at an isolated junction due south of Hudson. US 9 and NY 23 overlap for 2.5 miles (4.0 km) across more open but still largely undeveloped areas to a small, unnamed community on the western edge of Bell Pond, a small waterbody in the northeast corner of the town of Livingston.

In the center of the hamlet, US 9 and NY 23 encounter a complex intersection that features a total of four routes. At the junction, US 9 continues to the southwest while NY 82 continues southeast along NY 23's course. NY 23, meanwhile, picks up US 9's routing, overlapping with NY 9H in a northerly direction that takes both highways across Taghkanic Creek and into the equally rural town of Claverack. The routes remain overlapped into the hamlet of Claverack, where NY 23B comes in from the west and finishes its alternate loop of NY 23. At the same junction, NY 23 leaves the north–south NY 9H to resume an east–west alignment toward the Massachusetts state line.

Shortly after the NY 9H junction, NY 217 splits off to the northeast toward Philmont. The road continues southeastward from NY 217, crossing over Claverack Creek and leaving the built-up hamlet of Claverack for countryside more open and less rugged than that in the Catskills. It proceeds generally easterly across mostly undeveloped fields to Martindale, a small community at the interchange linking NY 23 to the Taconic State Parkway. From here, NY 23 follows a creek valley southeast and east into Hillsdale, where the route connects to NY 22, a north–south highway that closely parallels New York's eastern state line for most of its length. Almost 3 miles (5 km) to the east, NY 23 reaches the state line, where it becomes Massachusetts Route 23 as it serves the bi-state Catamount Ski Area.

## History

### Origins and designation

NY 23 was once made up of several privately owned turnpikes that stretched throughout New York. Two stretches of the highway, one from Catskill to Cairo and one from a few miles east of Stamford to West Harpersville, were also once part of the Susquehannah Turnpike. Created in April 1800, the Susquehannah Turnpike began in Catskill and ended in Unadilla. The Susquehannah Turnpike aided the growth of Greene County, which until then had depended on steamboats on the Susquehanna River and Catskill Creek. The turnpike attracted business from the New England states, made shipping easier for the county's farmers, and improved shipping from New York City. The turnpike was no longer maintained by a private company after 1899 and the highway remained intact for over 75 years. In 1974, part of the turnpike was added to the National Register of Historic Places. From Cairo to Stamford, the Susquehanna took a more northerly alignment, while NY 23 follows the turnpike of the Schoharie Kill Bridge Company, chartered in 1801. West of West Harpersville, the road superseded the Charlotte Turnpike to Oneonta, and part of the Butternuts and Sherburne Turnpike to Morris, which was in operation from 1836 to 1877.

In 1908, the New York State Legislature created Route 5, an unsigned legislative route that extended from Kingston in the south to Mohawk in the north. From Oneonta to Grand Gorge, Route 5 utilized modern NY 23. The portion of what is now NY 23 from Grand Gorge to Prattsville was designated as part of Route 38 in 1909 while the segment between the Delaware–Greene County line and Catskill (via modern CR 23B) became Route 5-a in 1911. On March 1, 1921, Route 38 was realigned to enter Grand Gorge from the northeast on modern NY 30 while Route 5-a was renumbered to Route 47 and extended northwest to Grand Gorge over the former routing of Route 38.

When the first set of posted routes in New York were assigned in 1924, the Oneonta–Grand Gorge segment of legislative Route 5 and all of Route 47 became part of NY 23, which continued east from Catskill to the Massachusetts state line southwest of Great Barrington, Massachusetts. It initially overlapped with NY 10 (later US 9W) northward along modern NY 385 to Athens, where it crossed the Hudson River via a ferry to Hudson. It continued east from Hudson on what is now NY 23B to Claverack, where it joined its modern alignment to Massachusetts. NY 23 was extended westward to NY 12 in Norwich in the mid-1920s. In the 1930 renumbering of state highways in New York, NY 23 was extended west along a previously unnumbered roadway to NY 26 in northwest Chenango County. From Norwich to North Pharsalia, NY 23 followed its modern alignment; between North Pharsalia and NY 26, NY 23 was routed on modern CR 42.

### Realignments

On July 2, 1935, the Rip Van Winkle Bridge over the Hudson River between Catskill and Greenport was opened to traffic. It became part of a realigned NY 23 after the Athens–Hudson ferry shut down in the late 1940s. NY 23 utilized modern NY 23B between the bridge and Hudson. Plans were made in the early 1950s to construct a southern bypass of the city of Hudson between the Rip Van Winkle Bridge and NY 23 midway between Claverack and Hollowville. Construction on the portion of the highway between the bridge and US 9 south of Hudson began in the mid-1950s and was completed in the late 1950s as a realignment of NY 23. Ultimately, this was the only section that was built; as a result, NY 23 overlapped with US 9 and NY 9H to reach its former alignment in Claverack.

NY 145 was extended eastward along NY 23 from Cairo to Catskill c. 1940. Both routes were realigned in the 1960s to follow a new arterial between Cairo and the Rip Van Winkle Bridge in Catskill. The first segment of the highway, a northerly bypass of the hamlet of Cairo, opened c. 1961. The remainder of the arterial was completed in the mid-1960s. NY 145 was truncated back to Cairo on January 1, 1970. Much of NY 23's former routing between Cairo and the Catskill village line is now CR 23B; however, a 0.63-mile (1.01 km) segment in Jefferson Heights between exit 21 of the New York State Thruway and a town road named Austin Acres is state-maintained as NY 911V, an unsigned reference route.

In Oneonta prior to the construction of the James F. Lettis Highway and I-88, NY 23 crossed the Susquehanna River concurrent with NY 28 along current NY 992D.

In July 1984, NY 23 was realigned west of North Pharsalia to follow a new highway between NY 26 in Cincinnatus and North Pharsalia. The length of the Chenango County portion of the new alignment was 8.40 miles (13.52 km), roughly double that of NY 23's old routing (4.39 miles or 7.07 kilometres). The 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of state highway mileage for the new road in Chenango County came from NY 23's former routing and NY 319 near Norwich, both of which were transferred to Chenango County after the new highway was completed.

## Suffixed routes

- NY 23A (34.56 miles or 55.62 kilometres) is an alternate route of NY 23 through Greene County. The route separates from NY 23 near Prattsville, passes through the northern portion of Catskill State Park, and ends at US 9W in Catskill south of where US 9W meets NY 23. It was assigned in the mid-1920s.
- NY 23B (6.71 miles or 10.80 kilometres) is an alternate route of NY 23 in western Columbia County. The route separates from NY 23 south of Hudson and rejoins its parent east of the village in Claverack. It was assigned in the late 1950s.

## Major intersections

## See also

- New York State Bicycle Route 23

State highway in the eastern portion of New York, USA

Limited-access roads in New York (state)

Transportation in Chenango County, New York

Transportation in Columbia County, New York

Transportation in Cortland County, New York

Transportation in Delaware County, New York

Transportation in Greene County, New York

Transportation in Otsego County, New York

Transportation in Schoharie County, New York


Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars is a crossover fighting game developed by Eighting and published by Capcom. The game features characters from both Capcom's video game franchises and various anime series produced by Tatsunoko Production. It was originally released in Japan for arcades and the Wii video game console in December 2008 as Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes (タツノコ VS. CAPCOM CROSS GENERATION OF HEROES). Following high demand from international fans, Capcom worked with Tatsunoko to resolve international licensing issues and a second version, Ultimate All-Stars, was released for the Wii in North America, Japan, and Europe in January 2010, featuring additional characters and online multiplayer.

In Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, players engage in combat with a team of two characters or with a single giant character and attempt to knock out their opponents. It is the seventh Capcom-designed installment in their Vs. fighting game series, which includes the Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK series, and the first to be fully rendered in 3D graphics. The game is set in a 2.5D environment; characters fight in a two-dimensional arena, but character models and backgrounds are rendered in three-dimensional graphics. The game is designed around a simplified three-button attack system, which was inspired by the simplistic control schemes commonly used by both the Vs. series and the Wii.

The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its approachable gameplay for newcomers and depth for veteran players. However, reviewers had mixed experiences with its online component, and found Arcade mode lacking in replay value. According to the game's producer, Ryota Niitsuma, development difficulties and a lack of Wii fighting games were the reasons for its platform exclusivity; however, multiple critics questioned if that was the best choice. Capcom announced in April 2010 that the game was a commercial success.

## Gameplay

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom is a tag team-based fighting game in which players control characters with different attacks and fighting styles, and engage in combat to deplete their opponent's life gauge. The gameplay is set in a 2.5D environment where the characters are rendered in three-dimensional graphics, but their movements are restricted to a two dimensional plane; they may only move left and right, and upward through the air. Each player may select a team of two characters and can switch between them during combat. Alternatively, players may select one of two "giant" characters, who cannot be played as part of a team. When characters switch, the incoming one performs a special attack upon entry, and the previous one can regenerate health. Characters not in play may be used to assist, and to perform powerful team moves. A match ends when a team has no characters left, or when the timer reaches zero—in which case, the team with the most remaining life wins.

The arcade release of Cross Generation of Heroes has a control scheme consisting of a joystick and four buttons. Wii versions of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom have five control options: the Classic Controller, Nintendo GameCube controller, third-party arcade sticks, and two simplified control schemes—intended for inexperienced players—for the Wii Remote. Players use controller inputs to perform attacks; the most basic attacks are executed by pressing one of three attack buttons: light, medium, or strong. Players may augment basic attacks with joystick or control pad directional inputs; for example, a standard strong attack can become a sweep when the down input is added. Basic attacks can be strung together to perform combos.

Each character has unique "universal techniques"—special attacks that are more powerful than normal moves—that require complex control inputs. Similar inputs are used to perform even stronger versions of special moves called Hyper Combos and Team Hyper Combos; these deal damage relative to the size of the player's Hyper Combo gauge, which increases when the character inflicts or receives damage. Certain universal techniques are usable by all characters; for example, each character possesses one that launches opponents upward, rendering them vulnerable to an "air combo". Other common universal techniques include the "Baroque Combo", which sacrifices the regenerable portion of a character's life gauge, but allows players to extend combos and deal more damage; and the "Mega Crash", which creates a temporary barrier around the character to knock back opponents, but partially drains their Hyper Combo and life gauges.

### Modes

Cross Generation of Heroes, the 2008 Wii version of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, has an Arcade game mode: the player fights against artificial intelligence (AI)-controlled opponents to reach the final boss character, Yami from Ōkami. Time attack and Survival modes are also available, and require the player to defeat every character in the game. While Survival limits health regeneration, Time attack challenges players to win in the shortest time possible. Other modes include Vs. Mode, in which two players engage in combat, and Original Games, which sees up to four players competing in character-specific minigames. Using money obtained throughout the game, the player may purchase unlockable characters, alternate character costumes, minigames, character profiles, movies, illustrations, and background music. Once purchased, the latter four are viewable in a gallery. The arcade release of Cross Generation of Heroes omits the game modes, and instead features a character selection screen from which a player may compete against either AI opponents or a second player.

Ultimate All-Stars has largely the same features as the Wii version of Cross Generation of Heroes, with the exception of Original Games; instead, it features a top-down shooter minigame set in the Lost Planet world called "Ultimate All-Shooters". Unique to Ultimate All-Stars is Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection support for Vs. Mode competition over the Internet. Online multiplayer matches may be played either with registered friends or opponents, or randomly selected participants. Players can choose from randomly selected opponents to be of a rank similar to their own. Rank is decided by battle points, which fluctuate when a ranked match is won or lost. Once a match is completed, players can add a consenting opponent to a Rival Roster for future matches.

## Playable characters

Ultimate All-Stars contains 26 playable characters from Capcom video game franchises like Street Fighter, Mega Man, and Viewtiful Joe and Tatsunoko Production anime franchises such as Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, Yatterman, and Casshan. The original arcade version of Cross Generation of Heroes features 18 characters, which was increased to 22 for its Wii release; one character from this version does not appear in Ultimate All-Stars. The rosters of both Ultimate All-Stars and Cross Generation of Heroes are evenly divided between Tatsunoko and Capcom characters. The game's two largest and most powerful characters, Tatsunoko's Gold Lightan and Capcom's PTX-40A, cannot have partners; by extension, they cannot perform universal techniques that require a partner. Non-playable characters, derived from Capcom and Tatsunoko intellectual properties, make cameo appearances during certain attacks; for example, Casshan is assisted by his robotic dog, Friender, while Doronjo is accompanied by her lackeys Boyacky and Tonzura.

### Tatsunoko characters

### Capcom characters

Notes

## Development

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom was conceived when Tatsunoko Production asked Capcom to develop a game with Tatsunoko characters. In-company discussions at Capcom about it started in mid-2006; Capcom producer Ryota Niitsuma was interested in producing a fighting game, and agreed with other Capcom employees that Tatsunoko's characters would be better suited for a Vs. game than a Street Fighter game. The resulting project was the seventh Capcom-designed entry in the Vs. series and the first in over seven years. In the 2000s decade, fighting games were less popular and plentiful than in the mid-1990s, with multiplayer competition shifting towards other genres.

The research and development team started work in parallel with Street Fighter IV. "Capcom [hoped to] bring back the fighting genre into the mainstream market [...] with a serious fighting game for very hardcore fans, and another with a slightly lowered barrier to entry," Niitsuma said. Eighting, Capcom's hired developer, took on the job in early 2007. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom's design was a departure from the complex attack systems of the Street Fighter series, and of certain Vs. titles. The game is built around a simplified three-button attack system (light, medium, and strong); it was inspired by the control systems commonly used by both the Vs. series and the Wii, which allows intricate moves to be performed with basic control inputs.

On May 22, 2008, Capcom announced the game, titled Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes, for release in Japanese arcades. The arcade cabinets' system board was proprietary hardware based on the Wii. Beta units were sent to test locations in Tokyo (July 10–13) and Osaka (July 25–27). By September, the game was 70% complete, and a Wii version was announced for Japanese release. Capcom gradually revealed the game's cast until release. It was released in Japan on the Wii on December 11, 2008, and an arcade version followed in mid-December 2008.

When choosing candidates for the Tatsunoko and Capcom character rosters, the development team was free to nominate any character it wished. However, the team faced limitations on its Tatsunoko candidates; Niitsuma explained, "[We] had to consider licensing issues. Once we had that list we had to figure out how to make a balanced fighting game. On top of that we wanted a good balance between male and female characters." Selection emphasis was placed on main characters, rather than on villains. Certain characters were denied by Tatsunoko Production without explanation to Capcom. "We weren't privy to a lot of their decision making process. They didn't share a lot of reasons with us. When they said no and we asked why, they wouldn't tell us, but would give us another suggestion," Niitsuma said. They disallowed characters from Genesis Climber MOSPEADA or Samurai Pizza Cats, despite the high number of fan requests for the latter. The eponymous characters of Tatsunoko's Muteking, The Dashing Warrior and Nurse Witch Komugi were among those planned for inclusion, but were eventually scrapped. The finalized Tatsunoko cast consists of characters that the team enjoyed in their youth. The development team hoped to include Capcom's Phoenix Wright and Franziska von Karma from the Ace Attorney series, but, while the latter's use of a whip made her easy to incorporate, the team struggled to find appropriate attacks for Phoenix. Since Phoenix doesn't move from the waist down in his original game environment, the team considered adding tires to his desk and having the entirety move as a single character. However, this was abandoned due to potential collision issues. Though they envisioned an attack that used his catch-phrase "Objection! (異議あり!, Igiari!)", with the letters themselves used to attack the opponent, they found that localization would have changed the Japanese four-character phrase (in kanji) to a ten-letter word in English, unbalancing the game. According to Niitsuma, during an interview with Siliconera, the inclusion of the race car driver and title character from Speed Racer was discussed but could not be incorporated as he lacked a viable moveset and the vehicle itself wasn't feasible. Arthur from Ghosts 'n Goblins, and Ingrid from Capcom Fighting Evolution were also scrapped.

The game is the first Capcom-designed Vs. installment to be rendered fully in 3D. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and its graphical characteristics were optimized for the Wii, which prevents the game from being ported to other consoles without completely re-building the game. Niitsuma explained that its Wii exclusivity was also due to a lack of Capcom fighting games for the console, and because the Wii's casual quality matches the Vs. series trait of accessibility. The producer suggested that porting a sequel would be easier, but that Capcom would gauge the reception of the Wii game before making such plans. Capcom USA's Corporate Officer/Senior Vice-President Christian Svensson revealed in early November 2012 that Capcom's rights with Tatsunoko have lapsed thus disallowing Capcom to sell Tatsunoko vs. Capcom physically or digitally.

### Localization

On May 6, 2009, Capcom listed two "mystery games" as part of their Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009 (E3 2009) lineup. Nintendo Power magazine revealed "Capcom Mystery Game \#1" to be the North American localization of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes, with the new subtitle "Ultimate All-Stars". It was playable at the company's E3 booth. European and Australian releases were announced on later dates. The game was originally unintended for release outside Japan, but was localized by Capcom due to positive fan reception. Tatsunoko Production assisted Capcom with its character licensing issues; while Tatsunoko Production holds such rights in Japan, they are licensed to companies such as Time Warner in other countries. Niitsuma said that acquiring character licenses was difficult, as it was largely done one at a time, and characters cleared in North America had to be checked separately in Europe. Another issue was the possibility that Eighting would be occupied with other projects. Time constraints led Niitsuma to replace the character-specific minigames of Cross Generation of Heroes with "Ultimate All-Shooters", an expansion of PTX-40A's minigame. Artwork by UDON replaced the animated character-specific endings.

A Capcom press release in June 2009 stated that the North American release would have more mini-games, an "enhanced" story mode, and support for online play. The roster would be expanded by five characters, but would lose one unnamed Tatsunoko character. However, Capcom later revised this press release, as it was incorrect, with the statement that they were "looking into adding new features to the game, including possible additions of several new characters from both Capcom and Tatsunoko and [...] exploring the option of online gameplay."

On September 9, 2009, Capcom announced the Japanese release of Ultimate All-Stars. Starting on that day, the company periodically revealed the game's new characters; however, the full cast was leaked through JavaScript code on the game's official Japanese site. With the exception of Hakushon Daimaō, who was removed due to unspecified licensing issues, every playable character from the original Wii release was included. Hakushon Daimaō was also removed in Ultimate All-Stars' Japanese release, due to both his unpopularity with players, and the game's status as a localization of the North American version. The new characters encompassed Frank West from Dead Rising, Zero from Mega Man X, Yatterman-2 from Yatterman, Joe the Condor from Gatchaman, and the title character from Tekkaman Blade. Shinji Ueda served as a director along with Hidetoshi Ishizawa. Ishizawa admitted that, just as Cross Generation of Heroes was not initially planned to be released internationally, neither was Ultimate All-Stars planned to be released in Japan. However, fan appeals and the research and development team's own hopes resulted in the game's Japanese localization.

### Launch

An official launch event for Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All Stars was held at the Nintendo World Store in the Rockefeller Center on January 23, 2010, featuring autograph signings by Niitsuma, giveaways, competitions, and playable demo kiosks. Hundreds of fans were expected to attend between 11 pm and 3 pm. The game was released in North America on January 26, in Japan on January 28, and in Europe on January 29. Capcom's Community Manager Seth Killian expressed satisfaction with the North American sales of Ultimate All-Stars. "[Tatsunoko Vs Capcom] certainly beat the initial expectations. It didn't set any land speed records, but it was a success," Killian stated. "And that's really saying something considering that we're talking about a game that was not only never coming out, but has a title that most people can't even pronounce." In Japan, Ultimate All-Stars sold 18,913 units as of January 2, 2011, and, as of December 27, 2009, Cross Generation of Heroes has sold 62,805 units.

Certain versions of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars are bundled with a Mad Catz arcade stick, whose artwork was produced by Japanese artist Shinkiro. Pre-orders from GameStop included eight of thirteen lenticular trading cards. As a buying incentive, Capcom's Japanese online store offered a Secret File compilation book of concept art, illustrations and design notes; it is the twenty-seventh volume of the Secret File series, which was originally published between 1996 and 1999 as a supplement to Capcom games of the time. The store also included an audio CD with four vocal tracks from the game: the opening song from Cross Generation of Heroes, "Across the Border", sung by Asami Abe; Ultimate All-Stars' English re-recording of this song, sung by Anna Gholston, with rap by James C. Wilson; and the Japanese and English versions of Roll's theme song composed by Yoshinori Ono.

## Reception

Famitsu's four reviewers each gave Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes a score of 8/10. They believed that its variety of characters and its fighting system were strong points, but found its gameplay to be slightly flat, as skilled players are obligated to use Baroque Combos repeatedly. Licensing and resource issues made GameSpot's Ricardo Torres, IGN's John Tanaka, GamesRadar and other critics doubtful that the game would see an international release. Describing the game's cast of licensed characters, Adam Sessler of X-Play stated that "clearing the American rights to show them all in one game would be a logistical nightmare." He also pointed out the largely unknown cast to non-Japanese audiences—a notion IGN's Mark Bozon agreed with. When Ultimate All-Stars debuted at E3 2009, it garnered numerous genre-specific awards, and won the Game Critics Award for "Best Fighting Game".

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars received positive reviews, with an average score of 85% on review aggregate sites Metacritic and GameRankings. Critics praised its balance between accessibility and depth; Adam Sessler called it the perfect game for the Wii's demographic, and remarked that it allows "grandmas, kiddies and junkies" to perform intricate combos, while including deeper gameplay mechanics for the "more refined palate". Contrasting the game with previous Vs. titles, GameSpot reviewer Randolph Ramsay stated that its use of fewer buttons "may seem less complex [...], but this simplicity belies the depth of each character's move set." Eurogamer's Matt Edwards believed that, compared to the separate buttons for punches and kicks in Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom's streamlined approach was moderately easy to learn. Edwards claimed that the game is a "slightly slower and more user-friendly Marvel, without losing the ability to pull-off crazy 50+ hit combos."

Reviewers lauded the variety of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom's graphical presentation and character playstyles. Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica wrote that its over-the-top attacks can be "huge, colorful, screen-filling blasts of light and movement," and that combos "flash across the screen, claiming you landed billions of points of damage." Adam Sessler and 1UP.com's Richard Li found that each character played in a vastly different way; Li explained that there are characters who take advantage of sheer speed and long range moves, others who use momentum to apply pressure to opponents and those who rely on a single opportune moment to deal vast amounts of damage. Heidi Kemps of GamePro contrasted the game with Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and noted that "every combatant in Tatsunoko feels carefully designed to be unique, intriguing, and most importantly, worth investing time into mastering." Bozon, Edwards, and VideoGamer.com's Wesley Yin-Poole believed that the characters were well-animated, and chained attacks together seamlessly.

Li criticized Capcom for not providing an easy alternative to unlock characters since the multiple Arcade mode playthroughs needed to unlock them could be frustrating. Nintendo World Report's Neal Ronaghan mentioned it can get tedious, and echoing Li's sentiment, Ryan Scott of GameSpy complained that "arcade mode needs to be left to die," as multiplayer is the primary reason for playing fighting games. Both Scott and Ramsay thought many of the other unlockables obtainable through Arcade mode didn't offer sufficient value. Reviewers had mixed experiences with its online component; GameDaily's Robert Workman reported that it ran fluidly, but Scott said that the game lagged often enough to be unplayable. Edwards thought "the netcode hasn't shown itself to be particularly sturdy," but the situation may improve as the number of local players increase. Both Bozon and GameTrailers said that performance depends on each player's connection; the latter explained that lag is more likely to occur when playing against a distant opponent.

The game's soundtrack was lauded, with Robert Workman of GameDaily highlighting its "fantastic mix of strong techno tunes and dramatic battle themes." Ramsay cited its "convincing battle effects" and "catchy music"; he believed that the latter complemented the game's dynamic nature and presentation. Bozon and Official Nintendo Magazine's Chris Scullion expressed annoyance with the voice work of the top-down shooter minigame. Bozon explained that three of the four playable characters yell every time they fire.

Critics speculated on the commercial risk of localizing Tatsunoko vs. Capcom for the Wii. Kemps considered it a risky undertaking for Capcom, as the console isn't renowned for fighting titles, and as the game abandons the three-on-three matches of the Marvel titles—which popularized the Vs. series—in favor of the two-on-two formula used in the older, more obscure Vs. games. Kemps and Bozon pointed out that the game's Tatsunoko characters are largely unknown to non-Japanese audiences; this caused Bozon to liken the game to a dark horse, as he considered it to be one of the Wii's best titles. Li reported that "Many wondered why Capcom chose Nintendo's Wii as the exclusive platform [...], a multiplatform release would reach a broader audience, critics argued." The game's quality led Yin-Poole to question whether it would stay exclusive to the Wii; he speculated, "Perhaps TvC is a test, then. If it sells even remotely well, maybe we'll see a sequel on Microsoft and Sony's consoles. Or maybe, fingers crossed, it'll add further weight to the case for [Marvel vs. Capcom 3]."

## See also

- Tatsunoko Fight, a 2000 fighting video game featuring characters from various Tatsunoko properties

2008 video game

Fighting games used at the Evolution Championship Series tournament

Fighting games used at the Super Battle Opera tournament

Multiplayer and single-player video games