Re: "Ii" for plural "Iris"
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: "Ii" for plural "Iris"
- From: "* G* C* <j*@erols.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:40:13 -0600 (MDT)
Tom Tadfor Little wrote:
>
> This is not a question of Latin
> inflection; it is a question of medieval orthography. There was once an
> established practice of indicating that an abbreviation was plural by
> simply duplicating the last letter of the abbreviation. This survives today
> in English only in a few relics, such as "pp." for "pages" (plural of "p.")
> and "mss." for manuscripts (plural of "ms.").
>
> The practice also survives in botanical writing, although it has become
> considerably less common in recent decades. It works like this:
>
> T. tarda and T. pulchella (tulips) => Tt. tarda and pulchella
> S. spurium and S. album (sedums) => Ss. spurium and album
> I. pumila and I. pallida (irises) => Ii. pumila and pallida
>
> and so on.
>
> In this case, I have to break ranks with my fellow editor and agree with
> Clarence: "Ii." is perfectly acceptable and conventional. I suspect,
> though, that "I. pumila and I. pallida" may be a preferable idiom for
> modern readers.
>
Tom -- I bow to your superior knowledge of taxonomic usage. To
paraphrase: De usu non disputandum est.
Griff Crump, along the Potomac, where the local TV stations say the
temperature is 29 degrees, but my thermometers, happily, say 33.
