Re: Salvia forskaohlei by any other name . . .
- To: m*@ucdavis.edu
- Subject: Re: Salvia forskaohlei by any other name . . .
- From: J* A* <j*@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:45:13 +1100 (EST)
At 10:27 5/11/98 -0800, Sean wrote:
>Fellow Pedantic Plantspersons -
> The fact
>that the person's name in question over S. forskaolei might be
>more properly spelt to reflect the original Swedish has no bearing
>on whether or not it is the correct botanical spelling. All that
>matters is the spelling used in the original publication of this
>species (even if it contained a typographical error and was not
>the intention of the describing botanist!).
Yeah, I was pretty sure that was the case. But I was having too much fun to
mention it. So all we have to do is look up Lineaeus's original paper.
It's not in my library unfortunately. Still, he was a Swede, so it's likely
he got his friend's name right, and a pretty meticulous old bugger too, so
it's unlikely he would have let any typos slip through.
>S. forsskalii - 0 " (except for Herbarium Forsskalii, for
> Pehr Forsskal, at the Univ of Copenhagen)
Presumably the same person? ("Per" or "Peer" being a version of "Peter"
common in Scandinavia)
>I could probably gone on coming up with variations of this spelling
>but chose not to ;-). Seems clear that either S. forskaolei is the
>name which is the most proper and is therefore the most used (at
>least in cyberspace) or it is the more rampant mispelling!!
Yup.
John.
