Re: HIST:Swerti vs. Swertii & a bit on plicata origins

I did some memory refreshing on the issue of the endings of names given in
honor of persons.  I was incorrect before; in botanical usage, the double
"ii" ending is indeed called for in certain situations by the "rule of the
code", and this is spelled out rather clearly.  It is not a matter of
choice.  So, the comment on the name "swertii" deserves a bit more
attention.  This name was originally given as a botanical epithet {albeit,
I believe, invalidly published} for what was presumed to be a species, but
the name is now generally treated as a synonym of I. pallida.  If treated
as a botanical name (at species or any lower ranking), the rules of
nomenclature need to be followed.  This is why the name usually appears as
"swertii" and not as "swerti".  Even if it was originally spelled with one
"i" (I'm not certain if this), it should be corrected to two. The one
exception to the rule is if it is a name "...already in Greek or Latin, or
possessing a well-established Latinized form...".  [see below]  I don't
think Sweert qualified on this count (?).  There is always some room for
interpretation in the rules but in this case the addition of an extra "e"
would not be acceptable if the name was [intentionally] originally
published with only one, and the double "ii" seems pretty strongly called
for as well.  I have not looked up the original publication of the name
Iris swertii, but the following is the standard citation for the name
(regrettably the year is left off, and I didn't take time to hunt that
down).

      Iridaceae Iris swertii Hort. ex Lam. -- Encyc. iii. 296.

The following is a link to the 'International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature',

http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0000St.Luistitle.htm

I have copied some relevant excerpts from that document.  Much of Article
60 is copied in this post, but not all. The entire Article 60 is found at:

http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0065Ch7OaGoNSec1a60.htm

The proper formulation of names is covered in great detail in Article 60
(but not pronunciation); there are other related details in other articles
of the code.



60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except
for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the
standardizations imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably),
60.6 (diacritical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9
(hyphens), 60.10 (apostrophes), 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.5),
and 60.12 (fungal epithets).


Ex. 1. Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum
L. (1753) and Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus
and the spelling is not to be altered to "Mesembrianthemum" and
"Amarantus", respectively, although these latter forms are philologically
preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928). -
Phoradendron Nutt. (1848) is not to be altered to "Phoradendrum". -
Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. (1843) is not to be altered to "T. mossambica",
as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). - Alyxia ceylanica
Wight (1848) is not to be altered to "A. zeylanica", as in Trimen (Handb.
Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895). - Fagus sylvatica L. (1753) is not to be altered
to "F. silvatica". The classical spelling silvatica is recommended for
adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 60E), but the mediaeval spelling
sylvatica is not an orthographical error. - Scirpus cespitosus L. (1753) is
not to be altered to "S. caespitosus".


*Ex. 2. Typographical errors: Globba "brachycarpa" Baker (1890) and
Hetaeria "alba" Ridl. (1896) are typographical errors for Globba
trachycarpa Baker and Hetaeria alta Ridl., respectively (see J. Bot. 59:
349. 1921).


Ex. 3. The misspelled Indigofera "longipednnculata" Y. Y. Fang & C. Z.
Zheng (1983) is presumably a typographical error and is to be corrected to
I. longipedunculata.


*Ex. 4. Orthographical error: Gluta "benghas" L. (1771), being an
orthographical error for G. renghas, is cited as G. renghas L. (see Engler
in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 4: 225. 1883); the vernacular name
used as a specific epithet by Linnaeus is "renghas", not "benghas".


Note 1. Art. 14.11 provides for the conservation of an altered spelling of
a name of a family, genus, or species.


Ex. 5. Bougainvillea (see App. IIIA, Spermatophyta, Dicotyledones).


60.2. The words "original spelling" in this Article mean the spelling
employed when the name was validly published. They do not refer to the use
of an initial capital or lower-case letter, this being a matter of
typography (see Art. 20.1 and 21.2, Rec. 60F).


60.3. The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve,
especially if the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the
first letter of the name.


*Ex. 6. The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not to
be altered, although it commemorates Vicente Manuel de CC)spedes (see
Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934). - Cereus jamacaru DC. (1828) may not
be altered to C. "mandacaru", even if jamacaru is believed to be a
corruption of the vernacular name "mandacaru".


60.4. The letters w and y, foreign to classical Latin, and k, rare in that
language, are permissible in Latin plant names. Other letters and ligatures
foreign to classical Latin that may appear in Latin plant names, such as
the German C (double s), are to be transcribed.


60.5. When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i,
j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern
practices (e.g., one letter of a pair not being used in capitals, or not at
all), those letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern
botanical usage.


Ex. 7. Uffenbachia Fabr. (1763), not "Vffenbachia"; Taraxacum Zinn (1757),
not "Taraxacvm"; Curculigo Gaertn. (1788), not "Cvrcvligo".


Ex. 8. "Geastrvm hygrometricvm" and "Vredo pvstvlata" of Persoon (1801) are
written, respectively, Geastrum hygrometricum Pers. and Uredo pustulata
Pers.


60.6. Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names. In names (either
new or old) drawn from words in which such signs appear, the signs are to
be suppressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modified;
for example C$, C6, C< become, respectively, ae, oe, ue; C), C(, C* become e, or
sometimes ae; C1 becomes n; C8 becomes oe; C% becomes ao. The diaeresis,
indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding
vowel (as in CephaC+lis, IsoC+tes), is permissible; the ligatures -C&- and
-E-, indicating that the letters are pronounced together, are to be
replaced by the separate letters -ae- and -oe-.


60.7. When changes in spelling by authors who adopt personal, geographic,
or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latinizations, they are
to be preserved, except when they concern only the termination of epithets
to which Art. 60.11 applies.


Ex. 9. Clutia L. (1753), Gleditsia L. (1753), and Valantia L. (1753),
commemorating Cluyt, Gleditsch, and Vaillant, respectively, are not to be
altered to"Cluytia", "Gleditschia", and"Vaillantia"; Linnaeus latinized the
names of these botanists deliberately as Clutius, Gleditsius, and
Valantius.


Ex. 10. Abutilon glaziovii K. Schum. (1891), Desmodium bigelovii A. Gray
(1843), and Rhododendron bureavii Franch. (1887), commemorating A. F. M.
Glaziou, J. Bigelow, and L. E. Bureau, respectively, are not to be changed
to A. "glazioui", D. "bigelowii", or R. "bureaui". In these three cases,
the implicit latinizations Glaziovius, Bigelovius, and Bureavius do not
affect merely the termination of the names.


Ex. 11. Blandfordia "backhousii", Cephalotaxus "fortuni", Chenopodium
"loureirei", Convolvulus "loureiri", Glochidion "melvilliorum", and
Zygophyllum "billardierii" were published to commemorate J. Backhouse, R.
Fortune, J. de Loureiro, R. Melville and E. F. Melville, and J. J. H. de
LabillardiC(re (de la BillardiC(re). The implicit latinizations are
Backhousius, Fortunus, Loureirus or Loureireus, Melvillius, and
Billardierius, but they affect only the termination and are not acceptable
under Art. 60.11. The names are correctly cited as B. backhousei Gunn &
Lindl. (1845), Cephalotaxus fortunei Hook. (1850), Chenopodium loureiroi
Steud. (1840), Convolvulus loureiroi G. Don (1836), G. melvilleorum Airy
Shaw (1971), and Z. billardierei DC. (1824).


Ex. 12. Abies alcoquiana Veitch ex Lindl. (1861), commemorating "Rutherford
Alcock Esq.", implies an intentional latinization of that name to
Alcoquius. In transferring the epithet to Picea, CarriC(re (1867)
deliberately changed the spelling to "alcockiana". The resulting
combination is nevertheless correctly cited as P. alcoquiana (Veitch ex
Lindl.) CarriC(re (see Art. 61.4).


60.8. The use of a compounding form contrary to Rec. 60G in an adjectival
epithet is treated as an error to be corrected.


Ex. 13. Candolle's Pereskia "opuntiaeflora" is to be cited as P.
opuntiiflora DC. (1828), and Myrosma "cannaefolia" of the younger Linnaeus,
as M. cannifolia L. f. (1782).


Ex. 14. Cacalia "napeaefolia" and Senecio "napeaefolius" are to be cited as
Cacalia napaeifolia DC. (1838) and Senecio napaeifolius (DC.) Sch. Bip.
(1845), respectively; the specific epithet refers to the resemblance of the
leaves to those of the genus Napaea L. (not "Napea"), and the substitute
(connecting) vowel -i should have been used instead of the genitive
singular inflection -ae.


Ex. 15. However, in Andromeda polifolia L. (1753), the epithet is a
pre-Linnean plant name ("Polifolia" of Buxbaum) used in apposition and not
an adjective; it is not to be altered to "poliifolia" (Polium-leaved).


60.9. The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to
be corrected by deletion of the hyphen, unless the epithet is formed of
words that usually stand independently or the letters before and after the
hyphen are the same, when a hyphen is permitted (see Art. 23.1 and 23.3).


Note 2. Art. 60.9 refers only to epithets (in combinations), not to names
of genera or taxa in higher ranks; a generic name published with a hyphen
can be changed only by conservation (Art. 14.11).


60.10. The use of an apostrophe in an epithet is treated as an error to be
corrected by deletion of the apostrophe.


60.11. The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or
-ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 (but not 60C.2) is treated as an error to be
corrected (see also Art. 32.5).


Ex. 20. Rosa "pissarti" (CarriC(re in Rev. Hort. 1880: 314. 1880) is a
typographical error for R. "pissardi" (see Rev. Hort. 1881: 190. 1881),
which in its turn is treated as an error for R. pissardii CarriC(re (see
Rec. 60C.1(b)).


Ex. 21. However, Uladendron codesuri Marc.-Berti (1971) is not to be
changed to U. "codesurii" (as by Brenan in Index Kew., Suppl. 16. 1981),
since the epithet does not commemorate a person but derives from an acronym
(CODESUR, ComisiC3n para el Desarrollo del Sur de Venezuela).


Ex. 22. Asparagus tamaboki Yatabe (1893) bears the Japanese vernacular name
"tamaboki" as its epithet and is therefore not correctable to A.
"tamabokii".


Note 3. If the gender and/or number of a substantival epithet derived from
a personal name is inappropriate for the sex and/or number of the person(s)
whom the name commemorates, the termination is to be corrected in
conformity with Rec. 60C.1.


Ex. 23. Rosa C"toddii" was named by Wolley-Dod (in J. Bot. 69, Suppl.: 106.
1931) for "Miss E. S. Todd"; the name is to be corrected to R. Ctoddiae
Wolley-Dod.


Ex. 24. Astragalus "matthewsii", published by Podlech and Kirchhoff (in
Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. MC<nchen 11: 432. 1974) to commemorate Victoria A.
Matthews, is to be corrected to A. matthewsiae Podlech & Kirchhoff; it is
not therefore a later homonym of A. matthewsii S. Watson (1883) (see
Agerer-Kirchhoff & Podlech in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. MC<nchen 12: 375.
1976).


Ex. 25. Codium "geppii" (Schmidt in Biblioth. Bot. 91: 50. 1923), which
commemorates "A. & E. S. Gepp", is to be corrected to C. geppiorum O. C.
Schmidt.


60.12. Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of an
associated organism are to be spelled in accordance with the accepted
spelling of that organism's name; other spellings are regarded as
orthographical variants to be corrected (see Art. 61).


Ex. 26. Phyllachora "anonicola" (Chardon in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940) is to
be altered to P. annonicola Chardon, since the spelling Annona is now
accepted in preference to "Anona". - Meliola "albizziae" (Hansford &
Deighton in Mycol. Pap. 23: 26. 1948) is to be altered to M. albiziae
Hansf. & Deighton, since the spelling Albizia is now accepted in preference
to "Albizzia".

                            Recommendation 60A


60A.1. When a new name or its epithet is to be derived from Greek, the
transliteration to Latin should conform to classical usage.


60A.2. The spiritus asper should be transcribed in Latin as the letter h.


                            Recommendation 60B


60B.1. When a new generic name, or subgeneric or sectional epithet, is
taken from the name of a person, it should be formed as follows:


                                                                                 
 (a)    When the name of the person ends with a vowel, the letter -a is added    
        (thus Ottoa after Otto; Sloanea after Sloane), except when the name ends 
        with -a, when -ea is added (e.g. Collaea after Colla), or with -ea (as   
        Correa), when no letter is added.                                        
                                                                                 
 (b)    When the name of the person ends with a consonant, the letters -ia are   
        added, but when the name ends with -er, either of the terminations -ia   
        and -a is appropriate (e.g. Sesleria after Sesler and Kernera after      
        Kerner).                                                                 
                                                                                 
 (c)    In latinized personal names ending with -us this termination is dropped  
        (e.g. Dillenia after Dillenius) before applying the procedure described  
        under (a) and (b).                                                       
                                                                                 





Note 1. The syllables not modified by these endings retain their original
spelling (Art. 60.1), unless they contain letters foreign to Latin plant
names or diacritical signs (see Art. 60.6).


Note 2. Names may be accompanied by a prefix or a suffix, or be modified by
anagram or abbreviation. In these cases they count as different words from
the original name.


Ex. 1. Durvillaea Bory (1826) and Urvillea Kunth (1821); Lapeirousia Pourr.
(1788) and Peyrousea DC. (1838); Engleria O. Hoffm. (1888), Englerastrum
Briq. (1894), and Englerella Pierre (1891); Bouchea Cham. (1832) and
Ubochea Baill. (1891); Gerardia L. (1753) and Graderia Benth. (1846);
Martia Spreng. (1818) and Martiusia Schult. & Schult. f. (1822).

                            Recommendation 60C

C.1. Personal names may be given Latin terminations and used to form
specific and infraspecific epithets as follows (but see Rec. 60C.2):
                                                                                   
 (a)    If the personal name ends with a vowel or -er, substantival epithets are   
        formed by adding the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number 
        of the person(s) honoured (e.g., scopoli-i for Scopoli (m), fedtschenko-i  
        for Fedtschenko (m), fedtschenko-ae for Fedtschenko (f), glaziou-i for     
        Glaziou (m), lace-ae for Lace (f), gray-i for Gray (m), hooker-orum for    
        the Hookers (m), except when the name ends with -a, in which case adding   
        -e (singular) or -rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g. triana-e for Triana    
        (m), pojarkova-e for Pojarkova (f), orlovskaja-e for Orlovskaja (f)).      
                                                                                   
 (b)    If the personal name ends with a consonant (except -er), substantival      
        epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive    
        inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured     
        (e.g. lecard-ii for Lecard (m), wilson-iae for Wilson (f), verlot-iorum    
        for the Verlot brothers, braun-iarum for the Braun sisters, mason-iorum    
        for Mason, father and daughter).                                           
                                                                                   
 (c)    If the personal name ends with a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by  
        adding -an- plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the     
        gender of the generic name (e.g., Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne, Vanda      
        lindley-ana for Lindley, Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero), except when   
        the personal name ends with -a in which case -n- plus the appropriate      
        inflection is added (e.g. balansa-nus (m), balansa-na (f), and balansa-num 
        (n) for Balansa).                                                          
                                                                                   
 (d)    If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed 
        by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix)    
        plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the   
        generic name (e.g. Rosa webb-iana for Webb, Desmodium griffith-ianum for   
        Griffith, Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).                               
                                                                                   




Note 1. The hyphens in the above examples are used only to set off the
total appropriate termination.


60C.2. Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a
well-established Latinized form, should be given their appropriate Latin
genitive to form substantival epithets (e.g. alexandri from Alexander or
Alexandre, augusti from Augustus or August or Auguste, martini from
Martinus or Martin, linnaei from Linnaeus, martii from Martius, wislizeni
from Wislizenus, edithae from Editha or Edith, elisabethae from Elisabetha
or Elisabeth, murielae from Muriela or Muriel, conceptionis from Conceptio
or ConcepciC3n, beatricis from Beatrix or BC)atrice, hectoris from Hector;
but not "cami" from Edmond Camus or AimC)e Camus). Treating modern family
names as if they were in third declension should be avoided (e.g. munronis
from Munro, richardsonis from Richardson).


60C.3. In forming new epithets based on personal names the customary
spelling of the personal name should not be modified unless it contains
letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritical signs (see Art. 60.4
and 60.6).


-------------------------------------

Now, if one treats 'Swertii' as a cultivar name, choosing to ignore the
original botanical form and publication, these rules do not apply.
However, it seems to me that since it was originally published in Latinized
botanical form, the rules should be followed simply to avoid confusion,
since it is still the same name.

There is the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants; or
the "Cultivated Plant Code"; or, ICNCP.  I have never read the book
(admittedly have had little interest in it), but it is available on line
for a fee, and you can purchase it at:

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm

Not sure if it might be available to look at on line anywhere else.  I
don't know how widely accepted and how well followed it really is.  It may
have something to say about the use as cultivar names of those published
originally as botanical taxa.  In fact, as I recall, it is discouraged (?).

-----------------------------------------

After I wrote most of this, I received Anner's post, and can add the
following.  I have grown 'Swertii' for years, and unless there is a gross
error in which clone is indeed the current possessor of this name, the
plant has nothing to do with I. aphylla.  It is clearly a clone of I.
pallida (pure or very nearly pure), and while short and small as compared
to many other clones (but not unique in this), it is typical of the species
in every way.  It is very different from I. aphylla in every morphological
feature that is important for distinguishing I. aphylla from I. pallida.

There is actually an old usage of the name I. aphylla which is separate
from the usage with which we are most familiar.  This usage, as I recall,
has a different authorship and has no connection to the I. aphylla we grow
now.  The name is considered as a synonym of I. pallida.  I think this is
discussed in Dyke's books.  This other aphylla lead to the unfortunate
confusion of the name I. plicata with I. aphylla, since the name plicata
was early on associated with that "other" aphylla.  I suspect any
association of the name "swertii" with the name "aphylla" came by
association of the name "swertii" with the name "plicata" first.

This brings me to a question.  Have any plicatas of I. aphylla (in the
sense we now recognize the name) or for that matter any other wild bearded
species ever been found?  I. variegata seems to come the closest, but the
only wild bearded species I know of to exhibit the traditional plicata
pattern is I. pallida, and Chuck has even raised a question about the
validity of that assumption.  None of the old I. pallida plicatas seem to
have documentation as to where they were found in the wild, rather they
seem to have all perhaps been garden plants - a good area for further
investigation.

This is getting into a new subject, but one quick last thought.  I've been
thinking about Chuck's ideas about plicata having come from I. variegata,
and there is one thing that bothers me.  This needs more looking at to mean
much (and more detailed data than just my limited observations).  This is
that I. pallida plicatas seem to produce I. pallida offspring.  I've not
checked ratios of non-plicata to plicata offspring (haven't grown many
yet), not sure that really matters to this point, but I haven't seen any of
the other traits which might go with even a fractional I. variegata
ancestry in these plants.  If the plicata allele came from I. variegata,
that means that plicata I. pallida still carry at least one chromosome from
I. variegata (unless only a small piece of the chromosome that carries the
plicata allele somehow was transferred to a pallida chromosome).  It seems
unlikely that the I. variegata chromosome carrying the plicata allele would
have no other affects on the visual expression of traits in the plants.
Further, it seems that if you bred these pallida plicatas with one another,
you would get a proportion of seedlings that have at least two (likely
more) chromosomes from their variegata ancestry, perhaps more than either
parent, and that some of the other I. variegata characters should show up
in some of these offspring.  This is just supposition at this point, not
necessarily fact, and it would take a proper breeding program to really get
results that mean anything.  [Seems Chuck is working on some aspects of the
question right now.]  If other I. variegata characters did show up in such
crosses, that would be more good evidence that the plicata gene got into
pallida type plants from I. variegata.

Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index