Re: Buddleia or Buddleja
- Subject: Re: Buddleia or Buddleja
- From: R* D*
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 00:53:33 -0400
At 01:56 PM 7/6/2002 +1000, you wrote:
>It seems that Linnaeus spelt it Buddleja when he published it in Species
Plantarum in 1753. The name honored the English botanist Adam Buddle
(1660-1715). The normal practice when forming a genus name from a personal
name ending in a vowel is to simply add an -a, as in Brownea (after Browne),
which infers a latinization of his name in the nominative case as Browneus.
(contrast with names ending in consonants, giving nominative -ius, and genus
names like Deutzia).
>
>But the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (online at
www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/) retrospectively
allows a lot of latitude to authors and especially Linnaeus as to the ways
in which they chose to latinize people's names. Linnaeus obviously chose to
latinize Buddle as Buddlejus, giving the genus name Buddleja. This seems to
be accepted by all the more recent reference books, e.g. the New R.H.S.
Dictionary of Gardening. But should it be? Consider this clause of the I.C.B.N.:
> 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 (one of those letters is not used or only in capitals), those
letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern botanical usage.
>As you may be aware, i and j were not distinguished in print until after
about 1600, and in many European languages as well as in Latin j is
pronounced like the English y, which when it falls between two vowels is
hardly different from i. And Stearn's 'Botanical Latin' makes the following
point:
> ". . . however. . the eighteenth-century printers of Linnaeus's works
employed i and j and u and v somewhat indiscriminately. At this period i
often came at the beginning of a word, even though the consonant j was
intended and j often within the word, usually after a vowel but sometimes
after a consonant, even though the vowel i was intended, as in RHEEDJA and
DELPHINJUM."
>I thought that Buddleja was specifically mentioned in the ICBN as an
example, but it's not there in the current edition, so I'm not sure of the
reasoning followed by compilers of recent references. I would have thought
that 'conformity with modern botanical usage' would make us decide in favor
of Buddleia.
>
>Can anyone enlighten us further?
>
>Tony Rodd
>Sydney, Australia
For what it's worth:
>From the St. Louis Code (1999):
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0001ICSLConte
nts.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER VII. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
SECTION 1. ORTHOGRAPHY
Article 60
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".
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.
Other possibly relevant sections:
CHAPTER III. NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA ACCORDING TO THEIR RANK
SECTION 4. NAMES OF SPECIES
Article 23
23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name
of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an
adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, or several
words, but not a phrase name of one or
more descriptive nouns and associated adjectives in the ablative (see Art.
23.6(a)), nor certain other irregularly formed designations (see Art.
23.6(c)). If an epithet consists of two or more words, these are to be
united or hyphenated. An epithet
not so joined when originally published is not to be rejected but, when
used, is to be united or hyphenated, as specified in Art. 60.9.
23.2. The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source
whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art. 60.1).
Ex. 1. Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Papaver rhoeas, Uromyces
fabae, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Embelia sarasiniorum, Atropa
bella-donna, Impatiens noli-tangere, Adiantum capillus-veneris, Spondias
mombin (an indeclinable epithet).
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0056Ch5RejoNa
51.htm
CHAPTER V. REJECTION OF NAMES
Article 51
51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its
epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable
or better known (but see Art. 56.1), or because it has lost its original
meaning, or (in pleomorphic fungi
with names governed by Art. 59) because the generic name does not accord
with the morph represented by its type.
CHAPTER V. REJECTION OF NAMES
Article 56
56.1. Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change (Art.
14.1) may be proposed for rejection. A name thus rejected, or its basionym
if it has one, is placed on a list of nomina utique rejicienda (App. IV).
Along with the listed
names, all combinations based on them are similarly rejected, and none is to
be used.
Hope this helps.
Richard F. Dufresne
313 Spur Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27406 USA
336-674-3105
World of Salvias: http://www.eclectasy.com/gallery_of_salvias/index.htm
Salvia email list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Salvia
