Re: HIST: Swerti, the Name

Hi all,

Anner, you said: "... although I do think we should consider approaching
warily this
matter of trying to bring some ancient names into conformity with the
ofttimes
volatile rules of nomenclature."

I just wanted to make the quick point that this is the whole point of the
ICBN, it is the set of rules that botanists follow world wide to bring all
botanical names into conformity. However, there are some qualifications
below. The original reason for the code was to bring such confusing names
into a state that everyone could agree on.  So, Iris swertii is very much
an example of why the code exists.  The fact that the name is not treated
as a species now doesn't really matter, since it was published as such, and
it could (though not likely) be considered as such again. It remains in the
lists of published botanical names as representing something, and as such
is subject to the rules.

There is a basic difference in mentality between botanists and most of the
people who are breeding and growing cultivars, it makes the correlation
between names sometimes a little difficult.  In botany, all the names
follow the rules of nomenclature, no matter the age or who named them, even
if they are synonyms.  Also, the names apply to populations of related
plants, and not to a single individual plant.  If I. swertii were a real
species, there would be more than one of them.  In the horticultural sense,
in dealing with cultivars, names tend to be attached to individual clones
and follow a different set of rules.  When individual names cross this
line, as happened a number of times with old Iris names, the confusion
begins. The fact that a number of the names became the official names of
color patterns just makes it more confusing.

I'll use the names in question for a hypothetically example, but not one
based on the facts.

If all the pallida type diploid plicatas were to be treated botanically as
a variety of I. pallida or as a species (I don't think either will ever
happen), they would bear the oldest botanical name at that ranking.
Continuing with the hypothetical, if the names were equally old at species
and varietal rankings, the oldest would be the valid name at both rankings.
Since I. swertii and I. plicata were published (I think) at the same time
by the same author, lets just call plicata the older for the purposes of
this example (the name plicata is I think "legal" and the name "swertii"
not anyway - but I need to double check that).  This would mean that Iris
swertii would be a synonym of Iris plicata.  Iris [pallida var.] plicata
would include all members of the hypothetical wild pallida-like plicatas,
and Iris swertii would not be used at all.  The only way the name swertii
would be used is if it was deemed distinct enough to be considered a
separate variety or species, and then it would include all the wild
individuals of the hypothetically distinct population to which swertii
belongs.  The type specimens (if they exist) and type descriptions together
are what defines and anchors the meaning of botanical species (and lower)
names, but the names aren't limited to use for that single type specimen
clone.

Now, to continue a bit longer with this example. If we have a hypothetical
species I. plicata, and I. swertii is a synonym, there are other plants of
interest.  For example we have 'Mme. Chereau', 'Fairy', and 'Ma Mie'.
These look like they belong to this hypothetical I. plicata, and lets say
indeed they came from the same population.  These names have no botanical
standing.  To the botanist these are just other individuals of I. plicata.
The names come to mean something in horticulture, they are names for
individual clones that are propagated. These names are not governed by the
ICBN.

When botanical names get switched over to cultivar names, there tends to be
a need to attach the name to one single plant.  This is a totally different
way of looking at the name, and it is the way a cultivar name works.  A
cultivar name would be akin to my name David Ferguson, but my scientific
(in this case zoological) name would be Homo sapiens.  If my personal
individual name was also Homo sapiens, you would know me as Homo sapiens, a
member of the species Homo sapiens, very confusing.

Now, if the name 'Swertii' is considered totally separately from it's
original botanical publication, and is just treated as a cultivar that
happens to have the same name only nothing more, the whole proper botanical
pronunciation and proper spelling issue for this name becomes a mute point.
In this usage, if there is no connection maintained (it could still be the
same plant the botanical name was originally based on though), the cultivar
name 'Swertii' only needs to meet the requirements for naming Iris
cultivars. It could be Sweertii or Swerti (discouraged, or is it prohibited
now, to use Latinized botanical form names), Sweert's Pinched, Swert's
Tucked, Sveert's Plicata, or whatever is allowed.  If it was registered as
'Swerti' already, then that's the name, but it's not a botanical name
per-sey.

If one wants to maintain the connection, and keep the cultivar name the
same as the original species name, then the accepted Botanical name is
governed by the ICBN, and this is the only reason these rules matter for
this name.

This partial melding of botanical and horticultural nomenclature is not a
common problem, but in a few horticulturally popular, cultivated for many
years groups, the problem is there to confuse us nonetheless.  I suspect
that similar problems come up with Roses.

Now back to botany for a sec. I have not seen the original publication of
Iris swertii and Iris plicata.  They are apparently described/illustrated
in the same publication.  Are the two names by chance based on one and the
same original plant?  Anybody know?

The "Hort." part of the swertii name indicates that it is a horticultural
name, but not validly published by Lamarck (doesn't meet the rules of the
ICBN), and it also implies to me that perhaps (???) it was listed under I.
swertii as an example?  A large percentage of Lamarck's names are not
recognized because they are lacking something important to legitimize them
(usually no description I believe).

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

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