(199)-(200) Citations of Synonyms (Rec. 50F and Art. 75.3)
Author(s): H. E. Weber and K. Adolphi
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Taxon, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1986), pp. 803-804
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1221657 .
Accessed: 24/07/2012 05:52
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
occasionalmasculine,perhapsbecauseof Greekinfluence).Voss (in litt.) commentedthat Latinusage
is complicatedby the factthatLotus(orLotos)wasappliedto severalplants,apparentlymorefrequently
using masculine for the waterlilyand feminine for the legume. My study of Latin usage (Georges,
Ausf'ihrl.Lat.-DeutschesHandw., 14th ed., 1976) revealed that feminine was used for five senses
(includingwaterlilyand legume)but masculinewas only sometimes used.
In view of the continuingcontroversy(Steam, A. W. Smith Gardener'sDict. Pl. Names, ed. 2.
1975, uses feminine but Encke and Buchheim,ZanderHandw. Pflanzennamen,ed. 10. 1972 uses
masculineand the FloraEuropaeacompromised,usingLotusas masculineand Melilotusas feminine)
of these genera,it is urgentto have the genderof Lotus and Melilotusspecifiedin the Code. Those
who oppose masculinegenderfor one or both should not oppose the proposalbut should proposean
amendment.
(198) Proposalto rewordthe first sentenceof Rec. 75A.2 to read:
"Compoundedgenericnames take the genderof the last word in the nominative case in the compound."
Comments:Unanimouslysupported.The Committee believes that the applicationshould not be
limited to Greek or Latin words. Another problem that this proposaladdressesare rare cases like
Cornucopiae,involving a neuternoun in nominativesingular(cornu)and a femininenoun in genitive
singular(copiae), literally horn of plenty. Linnaeus correctlyused neuter (C. cucullatum)and the
provision should not provide that feminine is correct.
Submittedby: V. Demoulin, D6partementde Botanique,Universit6de Liege, Sart Tilman, B-4000
Liege, Belgium and Dan H. Nicolson, Department of Botany NHB166, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,DC 20560, U.S.A.
(199)-(200) Citationsof synonyms(Rec. 50F and Art. 75.3).
Proposal(199) ChangeRec. 50F.1 to read:
"Names shouldbe spelledexactlyas originallypublishedexcept for changesimposed by the rulesbut
namescitedin synonymymay be maintainedin theiroriginalspelling.If a nameis citedwith alterations
fromthe formoriginallypublished,it is desirablethat in full citationsthe exact originalformbe added,
preferablybetweenquotationmarks.
Ex. 1: Pyrus calleryanaDecne. (Pirus mairei H. L6veill6,Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12: 189.
1913).
Ex. 2: ZanthoxylumcribrosumSprengel,Syst. Veg. 1: 946 (1825), 'Xanthoxylon'(Xanthoxylum
caribaeumvar.floridanum(Nutt.) A. Gray, Proc. Amer. Arts 23: 225. 1888).
Ex. 3: SpathiphyllumsolomonenseNicolson, Amer. J. Bot. 54: 496 (1967), 'solomonensis'.
Ex. 4: RubusplatyacanthusP. J. Miiller& Lef. (R. carpinifoliusf. crispaG. Braunex Kretzerin
Baenitz,Herb. eur. 7427. 1894)."
Proposal(200) Add to Art. 75.3 the followingsentence:
"For citation of variantsof acceptednames and synonyms,see Rec. 50F.1."
Comments:Form and spellingof names are ruledin various Articlesof the Code (Art. 16-28, 32,
73, 75). The spellingused in the originalpublicationis to be maintained(Art. 73, 75) unlessincorrect
Latinterminations(Art.32.5) and otherspellingscontraryto the rules(Art.73, 75) areto be corrected.
But Recommendation50F says: "Exceptas providedin Art. 75, a name cited in synonymyshould
be spelled exactly as publishedby its author".Obviously the citing of synonyms is intended to be
done in a mannerdifferentfrom citing a name that is acceptedas the correctone under the Code.
Otherwisethe Recommendationmakesno sense.Indeeda differencemustbe madebetweenthe names
that are used becausethey have been acceptedas the correctname for a taxon and those names that
are regardedas synonymsand are thereforeout of use.
NOVEMBER1986
803
In citingsynonymsthe bibliographicaspectis moreimportantthantransformingsynonymousnames
into the form requiredby the rules.Thus we do not think that citinga synonymin the followingway
makes sense: "RubusplicatusWeihe et Nees (R. plicatus f. planifoliusLindeberg,Herb. Rub. Scand.
28. 1885, 'planifolia')."What other purpose does such a citation serve than proving the author's
ability to change"planifolia"to "planifolius"?.This seems to be a superfluouspiece of information
that could be left out also in orderto save space.
An example of how much space can be wasted is the followingone: RubushistrixWeihe in Bluff
et Fingerhuth,Comp. fI. Germ. 1: 687. 1825 (R. hystrixWeihe et Nees, Rubi germ. 92, t. 41. 1827.
-R. radula[var.]hystrix(Weihe)Babington,Man. Brit. bot. 96. 1843. -R. glandulosusvar. histrix
(Weihe)Brebisson,Fl. Normandie.ed. 3. 101. 1859. -R. horridus[var.]hystrix(Weihe)Dumortier,
Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 2: 235. 1863. -R. fruticosusssp. hystrix(Weihe) Syme in Smith et
Sowerby,Engl.bot. ed. 3. 3: 181. 1864. -R. rosaceus[ssp.] hystrix(Weihe)Nyman, Consp. fI. eur.
1: 220. 1878. -R. rosaceusvar. hystrix(Weihe)Ley, Add. fl. Herefordsh.81. 1894). Would it not be
ridiculousto changeall spellingsof hystrixinto histrixwith 'hystrix'added?
Anotherexamplefor citinga synonym(in the mannerwe propose)mightbe: "Rubuspolyanthemus
P. J. Miiller(R. neumaniFocke in Potinie, Ill. Fl. ed. 1. 257. 1885)" instead of "R. neumanii"with
the addition'neumani'.The originaluse of a smallor capitalinitial letter(hereRubusNeumaniFocke)
may be regardedas typographicin synonymsand correctnames as well (Art.73.2) and does not affect
our proposal.Not to be regardedas typographicis the use of diacriticsigns that could be maintained
in synonyms for bibliographicreasons. Example:"RubuscamptostachysG. Braun (R. ciliatus var.
liibeckiiLindeberg,Herb. Rub. Scand. 51. 1885)."
The intentionof our proposalis to allow the citation of synonymsin the originalspellingwhich is
importantfor bibliographicreasons. We do not think that it is necessaryto apply the orthography
ruleswith names that are regardedas superfluousand out of use. Those who want to, however,may
changethe spellingof a synonym accordingto the rules but in doing so should preferablycite the
originalspellingbetweenquotationmarksas is done with acceptednames if the originalspellinghas
been changed.
Acknowledgment
We are indebtedto D. H. Nicolson for helpfulcomments.
Proposedby: H. E. Weber,Universityof Osnabriick,Dep. Vechta,Driverstrasse22, D-2848 Vechta,
FRG, and K. Adolphi, Kolpingstrasse36, D-5461, Rossbach,FRG.
(201A)-(201B) Proposalson confusinglysimilar names.
The SydneyCode has incorporateda definitionof 'orthographicvariants'in Art. 75 Note 1 and
therebyeliminateda longstandingsourceof ambiguityand confusion.Orthographicvariantsof a name
aredifferentspellingformsof one namebasedon one nomenclaturaltype.Of the orthographicvariants
of one name only one is to be regardedas validly published.The nomenclaturaltreatmentof orthographicvariantsis now ruledunambiguously,and furtherdiscussionhere is unnecessary.
The followingconsiderationis concernedonly with validly publishednames.
Differentnames may be based on one or severaltypes. If they are based on the same type, they are
nomenclaturalsynonymswhich, when similarlyspelledare best regardedas orthographicvariantsof
one name. If they are based on differenttypes, they may refer to differenttaxa or be taxonomic
synonyms. Differentnames based on differenttypes may be identical in spellingand, therefore,be
indistinguishableunlesstheir authorsand/or theirtypes are indicated.They are termed'homonyms',
and their nomenclaturaltreatmentis unambiguouslyruledby Art. 64.1, 64.3 and 64.4. They also are
of no concernhere.
This communicationis concernedwith names based on differenttypes (i.e., differentnames) which
are similar but not identical. When two or more generic, specific or infraspecificnames based on
differenttypes are so similarthat they are likely to be confused,they are to be treated,followingArt.
64.2, as homonyms,i.e., unless conserved,the laternames are illegitimate.
The presentwordingof Art. 64.2 thus expandsand blursthe definitionof 'homonym'beyond that
of identicallyspelled names. In orderto restrictthe term 'homonym'to names which are identically
804
TAXON VOLUME35