personal nomenclature matter pbs vol 89 issue 40

John C. MacGregor
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:01:23 PDT
On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Jim McKenney wrote:

> 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).

This phenomenon began with the publication of Hortus III, whose  
editors unilaterally decided to "correct" the old spellings by  
eliminating the "i" in "-iana" and "iorum" endings, etc.  The next  
International Botanical Congress repudiated these changes and  
restored the old spellings, in the process compounding the  
nomenclatural chaos--particularly in the nursery trade.  There are  
still some who use Hortus III as their authority, despite the Royal  
Horticultural Society's attempts to standardize names in their  
dictionary and other publications and their website.

John C. MacGregor
South Pasadena, CA 91030
USDA zone 9   Sunset zones 21/23

More information about the pbs mailing list