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 (60C.4). 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 jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871º North, 77.09829º West, USDA zone 7 My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ BLOG! http://mcwort.blogspot.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/