Jim pointed out to me privately that I had a mistake in the scientific name I used as an example. In his words: “It should be pardalinum, not paradalinum“ Thanks Jim. ;) I’ll also note that in western North America, it is common to refer to high mountain valleys—which are generally fairly steep and not generally very low-lying except with respect to the adjacent peaks—as basins. Here in the Washington cascades, we have a couple of popular hiking trails named “Eldorado Basin Trail” and “Esmeralda Basin Trail” after their namesake destinations. On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:04 PM Cody H <plantboy@gmail.com> wrote: > I was an academic botanist. I do not know of an official term for species > names that are not actually published, other than "unpublished", > "undescribed", or "invalid". But it sounds in this case like there is some > doubt as to whether these specimens even warrant consideration as species, > so a term like "provisional" or "unconfirmed" seems more appropriate to me. > I do not think "unresolved" is the correct term here. I quote the following > from http://theplantlist.org/: > > Around 20% of names are unresolved > <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about#unresolved> indicating that the > data sources included provided no evidence or view as to whether the name > should be treated as accepted or not, or there were conflicting opinions > that could not be readily resolved. > > > (and later:) > > Unresolved names are those to which it is not yet possible to assign a > Status of either ‘Accepted’ or ‘Synonym’. For an explanation of how names > were assigned a status please refer to How The Plant List was Created > <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about#created>. > > > There is more on that page if you are curious. But the point is, when they > use "unresolved", they are referring to the synonymy status of published > scientific names. In your case, the names are not published scientific > names, so there is no question of "resolution" in that regard (i.e. they > are neither accepted names nor synonyms). In the case of those > single-collection Hippeastrums, the uncertainty seems to apply to their > taxonomic identity itself. You/we think they might be species, but we're > not entirely sure (otherwise why not just publish formal names in the > monograph?). I am not aware of any standard term for this case, but words > like provisional, potential, unconfirmed, and unproven, come to mind. > > In other taxonomic literature, species that are recognized to exist but do > not have published scientific names are often (usually?) referred to using > colloquial labels in double quotes, e.g. *Eleocharis* sp. “Coonjimba > Billabong” (a real example of a plant I collected in northern Australia--a > region which recently contained many well-known species without formal > scientific names). I am not sure what format you are currently using for > the names of those "provisional" Hippeastrums, but in my opinion, it would > be strange and confusing to use names that resemble scientific names but > are not actual scientific names. For one thing, in formal documents, the > genus name and specific and sub-specific epithets of scientific species > names are italicized (or otherwise embellished) to indicate their status as > scientific names, and are followed by the authority for the name, e.g. > *Lilium* *paradalinum* subsp. *vollmeri *(Eastw.) M.W. Skinner. However, > the names for those provisional Hippeastrums have no authority (since they > are not validly published names) and it is questionable to italicize > them, so writing the name as (for example) "Hippeastrum noviflorum" (with > or without the italics) is confusing--it appears to be an incorrectly > formatted formal scientific name, and gives the wrong impression that it > really *is* a recognized name. I would naively advise the use of the > doubly-quoted format I described above, e.g. *Hippeastrum *sp. > "noviflorum". There are no rules about what you put inside the quotes since > it is just an informal label. Here is an example of a paper of mine from > the American Journal of Botany in which I used several names in this format > for Northern Australian species of Eleocharis (see "E. sp." under Appendix > I): > > https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/… > > My understanding of “cuenca” from my work/travel in Bolivia and Argentina > is that it does indeed mean “basin” but it is used perhaps a bit more > broadly than we use it here. According to Wikipedia a geological basin is > “a large, low-lying area”, which in practice can include the slopes of > adjacent upland areas. Are there contexts In the monograph in which this > definition would be inappropriate? I personally think it sounds strange to > describe a plant locality in terms of its "watershed", although I don't > disagree with the technical accuracy of that term. If "basin" doesn't make > sense in some cases because the region is too mountainous (by which I > assume you mean steep), I would probably consider the word "valley" or > "(high) slopes of valley", etc., before I would use "watershed", personally. > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robert Lauf via pbs < > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: > >> I haven't seen a topographic map of the region in question, but if you >> don't think "basin" describes the actual landform, then "watershed' would >> be a more conventional term than "drainage". >> Bob >> On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 06:29:33 PM EDT, Jane McGary via pbs < >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: >> >> Lee, >> >> Thanks, I was leaning toward "unconfirmed" as a neutral word. But I >> probably will use "unresolved" if that's what Kew prefers. "Ratified" >> sounds more like a decision made by an authoritative body. What Lara et >> al. mean is that the garden specimens, which seem to have been collected >> somewhere in nature, haven't been refound (yet). >> >> I didn't like "basin" for "cuenca" because of the mountainous nature of >> the places described, but "drainage" is good. How about "side drainage" >> for subcuenca? >> >> There is a lot of new material on H. leopoldii, which actually was >> refound, so the last job I have on the revision is translating that. >> >> Lara has added a new third author, his assistant Margoth Atahuachi >> Burgos, who has been most helpful in setting up the revised Spanish text >> so we could work on it efficiently. >> >> Jane McGary, Portland, Oregon, USA >> >> On 7/15/2020 1:34 PM, Lee Poulsen via pbs wrote: >> > To me it sounds like he means “unconfirmed”. The Plant List’s >> “Unresolved” seems the closest to that. They’re not discredited. And I >> think “questionable” and “doubtful species” seem too strong for what is >> being described. >> > >> > Bob’s right; I’ve seen the term “cuenca” used for things like a >> drainage basin or watershed such as the Mississippi watershed, or ocean >> basin such as the North Atlantic hurricane basin. >> > >> > --Lee Poulsen >> > Pasadena, California, USA - USDA Zone 10a >> > Latitude 34°N, Altitude 1150 ft/350 m >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… >> > _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…