The Odious Problem of Generic Names Ending in -idium vs. -odium: Confusable under Article
75?
Author(s): Dan H. Nicolson and James N. Norris
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Taxon, Vol. 30, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp. 476-477
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220152 .
Accessed: 16/08/2012 05:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Taxon.
http://www.jstor.org
THE ODIOUS PROBLEM OF GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -IDIUM VS. -ODIUM:
CONFUSABLE UNDER ARTICLE 75?
Dan H. Nicolson1 and James N. Norris1
It came to our attention that the well-known marine seagrass generic name, Syringodium
Kiitzing (1860) (den Hartog, 1970), might be threatened by the earlier diatom name Syringidium
C. G. Ehrenberg (1845), as possibly being confusable names under Article 75.1 (Stafleu et al.,
1978). Pleuripetalum and Pleuropetalum are listed in Art. 75.1 as likely to be confused, an
example of "names treated as orthographic variants." The implication is that names differing
only by an -i- and an -o-, particularly if a connecting vowel, are ipso facto confusable and the
later, validly published name would either require renaming or nomenclatural conservation
against the earlier name.
Are Syringidium and Syringodium confusable names? While the orthographic difference
between Pleuripetalum and Pleuropetalum is identical to the difference between Syringidium
and Syringodium (i.e., interchange of -i- and -o-), they are not etymologically comparable. The
suffix -idium is a simple diminutive, thus Syringidium is "a little syrinx (pipe)." The suffix
-odium is a derivative compounded from -odes (similarity) plus -ium (diminutive), thus Syringodium is "something like a small syrinx (pipe)." In short, we conclude they are not truly
orthographic variants with the same derivation.
What of other generic plant names ending in -idium and -odium? Thanks to a remarkable
computer program run by Dr. David Bridge (ADP Office, Smithsonian Institution) on the
computerized data file of Index Nominum Genericorum (Farr et al., 1979), we have a printout
of plant generic names alphabetized backwards which permits one to search for generic names
by their suffixes. Study of this printout revealed four pairs of generic names ending in -idium
and -odium. These are listed here with the earlier published name first (for place of valid
publication see Farr et al., 1979):
1. Cyathodium G. Kuntze, 1843 (Hepaticae) vs. Cyathidium Lindley ex Royle, 1835 (Asteraceae) [=Saussurea de Candolle (1810), teste Airy Shaw, 1966].
2. Desmodium Desvaux, 1813, nom. cons. (Fabaceae) vs. Desmidium C. Agardh ex Ralfs,
1848 (Desmidiaceae).
3. Physidium Schrader, 1821 (Scrophulariaceae) [=Angelonia Humboldt et Bonpland (1812),
teste Airy Shaw, 1966] vs. Physodium Presl, 1835 (Sterculiaceae).
4. Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg, 1845 (diatom), [=Cerataulina Peragallo (1892), teste VanLandingham, 1978] vs. Syringodium Kiitzing in Hohenacker, 1860 (Cymodoceaceae).
In our opinion none of these pairs of names are likely to be confused under Art. 75.1. Not
only are they etymologically different, but they apply to reasonably taxonomically unrelated
taxa.
If our argument is accepted, then Desmidium Ralfs (1848) is not threatened by Desmodium
Desvaux (1813), Physodium Presl (1835) is not threatened by Physidium Schrader (1821) and
Syringodium Kiitzing (1860) is not threatened by Syringidium Ehrenb. (1845). If our argument
is rejected, then it will be necessary to replace or, somehow, conserve Desmidium Ralfs (1848),
Physodium Presl (1835), and Syringodium Kiitzing (1860). Replacement of the well-known
name Desmidium would lead to many undesirable name changes for desmidiologists. However,
conservation of Desmidium would present technical difficulties; it certainly could not be conserved against the well-known legume name Desmodium, already conserved.
In any case, if Syringidium Ehrenb. (1845) is really a taxonomic synonym of Cerataulina
Pergallo (1892), as indicated by VanLandingham (1978), it will replace Cerataulina unless the
latter is conserved.
1 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.
476
TAXON
VOLUME 30
We also note that Syringidium Lindau, 1922 (Acanthaceae), with one species in Colombia,
is a later homonym of Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg, 1845 (diatoms). Our colleague, Dr. Dieter
C. Wasshausen (Botany, Smithsonian Institution), proposes the following new generic name
and combination:
Kalbreyeracanthus Wasshausen, nom. nov.
Syringidium Lindau, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 8: 142. 1922 [non Syringidium C. G.
Ehrenberg, Ber. Bekanntn. Verh. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1845: 347. 1845].
Kalbreyeracanthus atropurpureus (Lindau) Wasshausen, comb. nov. Syringidium atropurpureum Lindau, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 8: 142. 1922.
The genus is named in honor of William E. Kalbreyer, botanical collector, nurseryman and
orchid exporter in West Tropical Africa and Colombia, between 1876 and 1881.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Grethe Hasle pointed out the diatom name Syringidium to us, and we thank Dr. R. Ross
for correspondence on the status of the name and Dr. George C. Steyskal for comments on
the manuscript. We especially thank Dr. David Bridge (Smithsonian Institution) for the computer program and the printout of reversely alphabetized ING file of generic names.
Literature Cited
Airy Shaw, H. K. 1966. J. C. Willis: A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants and Ferns. 7th Ed.
xxii + 1214 + lii pp. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Farr, E. R., J. A. Leussink and F. A. Stafleu (eds.). 1979. Index Nominum Genericorum
(Plantarum). 3 vols. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
Hartog, C. den. 1970. Sea-grasses of the World. Verh. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch.;
Afd. Nat.; Tweedw. Reeks, Deel 159(1): 215 pp. + 20 pp. of photographs. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publ. Co.
XIV
Stafleu, F. A. et al. (eds.). 1978. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ....
+ 457 pp. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
VanLandingham, S. L. 1978. Catalogue of the Fossil and Recent Genera and Species of
Diatoms and Their Synonyms. Pt. VII: Rhoicosphenia through Zygocerus. Pp. 36064220. Vaduz: J. Cramer.
VALIDATION OF BLAKEOCHLOAVELDK. (GRAMINEAE)
J. F. Veldkampl
In a previous paper (Veldkamp, 1980) I proposed the name Blakeochloa Veldk. for Plinthanthesis sensu S. T. Blake (1972), non Steudel (1853). When Blake split off three species
from Notodanthonia Zotov, one of these happened to have been originally described in Plinthanthesis Steudel. Blake chose this one as the lectotype of the latter genus and was thus not
required to give a description of his genus again, as it was not new. However, because I have
shown that his choice was mistaken, and that another species should be regarded as the type,
and that the generic name therefore should be considered as a heterotypic synonym of Notodanthonia, Blake's genus now is without a formal description, and the name Blakeochloa
Veldk. is invalid, as well as the new combinations proposed under it.
1 Rijksherbarium, Schelpenkade 6, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
MAY 1981
477