personal nomenclature matter pbs vol 89 issue 40

Jim McKenney
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:50:52 PDT
Thanks, Cherry. Now we're getting somewhere. 

I have a couple of comments to make about the section of the rules you cited
and its significance for us.

These rules determine the current spelling of botanical names. One
consequence of this is that names long established in the literature with
their original, as-published spelling will now appear without warning with
new spellings. 

Here are some examples. The rose named by Crépin in the late nineteenth
century as Rosa wichuraiana, and well known by that name for  over a
century, is now called Rosa wichurana. Search some modern databases using
the old name and you come up with nothing (this is the voice of experience
speaking!).  This rose is named for Max Wichura, so take a look at section
60C.3, adjectival epithets. 

This section also resolves some variant spellings which have appeared in the
literature (and continue to appear). Here are two examples relevant to the
bulb hobby: Crocosmia masoniorum is the current spelling (60C.2), not C.
masonorum. The name Tulipa fosterana had a brief life in the literature a
while back, but Tulipa fosteriana continues to be the current spelling

Are we ready to move on to a discussion of which names should be declined,
or a treatment of non-Indo-European names? 

Jim McKenney
Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871º North, 77.09829º West, USDA zone
My Virtual Maryland Garden
Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS 
Editor PVC Bulletin 
Webmaster Potomac Lily Society

More information about the pbs mailing list