On the Use and Citation of True and False Homonyms
Author(s): Paul Goetghebeur and Dominique Vande Plassche
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Taxon, Vol. 35, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 321-323
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1221279 .
Accessed: 27/07/2012 02:31
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
Frizzell,D. L. 1933. Terminologyof types. Amer.MidlandNaturalist14(6):637-668.
Jeffrey,C. 1978. Biologicalnomenclature.EdwardArnold, London.
Voss, E. G. et al. 1983. Internationalcode of botanicalnomenclature.Bohn, Scheltema& Holkema,
Utrecht & Antwerp.
ON THE USE AND CITATION OF TRUE AND FALSE HOMONYMS
Paul Goetghebeur1
and Dominique VandePlassche'
Summary
Here is a plea for a more unambiguouscitation of misidentifications;they should not be confused
with homonyms.Second,for homonymicbasionymsand names based on them, shouldthey be saved
or ratherabolishedonce and forever?
A. The Citationof Misidentificationsand of Homonyms
Althoughthe Code stipulatesvery clear provisionsfor the citation of homonyms (Art. 50. Rec. C)
and of publishedmisidentifications(Art. 50. Rec. D), these logical recommendationsare not always
observed.Especiallythe olderliteratureswarmswith misidentificationsor sensusobviouslypresented
as homonyms, but even today similar confusing citation is used. Since the checkingof these false
homonyms is terriblytime consuming,we are wonderingwhetherthe recommendationsshould not
be made obligatory,e.g., as Art. 50.2 resp. 50.3. Or might there be other solutions of which we are
not awareto counterthis carelessusage?
Example 1. In their recentlypublishedcyperaceousflora, Haines and Lye (1983) cite misidentifications as homonyms on several occasions, and often in a careless,even crypticway. For instance,
to CyperusatroviridisC. B. Clarkeis added the following synonym:"CyperusaterrimusSteudel in
Cyp. E. Afr. IX" (o.c.: 199). What is meant here, is: Cyperusaterrimusauct., non Steudel:D. M.
Napper,J. E. Afr. Nat. Hist. Soc. 26: 11 (1967).
Example2. In the same work, under CyperusmaderaspatanusWilld. (o.c.: 253) is mentioneda.o.
the following synonym:"MariscussquarrosusC. B. Cl. in F.T.A.," where actually should figure,I
suppose:Mariscussquarrosusauct., non (L.) C. B. Clarke:C. B. Clarkein W. T. Thiselton-Dyer,Fl.
Trop. Afr. 8: 400 (1902), p.p.
Example3. Henrard(1950: 26) cited a PanicumdebilePhilippi,(.. .) non Poir.,whatactuallyshould
be: Panicumdebileauct., non Poir.: Philippi,Anal. Univ. Chile 93: 713 (1896).
Example4. Anotherpublishedmisidentificationis referredto as Panicum leucophaeumBentham,
(...) non Humb. Bonpl. Kunth (Henrard 1950: 96). After checking one can correct this entry as:
Panicum leucophaeumauct., non Kunth:G. Bentham,Fl. Austr. 7: 472 (1878).
B. Saving or AbolishingHomonymsand Names Based on Them
A laterhomonym is an illegitimatename (unlessconserved)and must be rejected,accordingto the
quite unambiguousArticle64.1 (with examplesof genericand specificnames).For genericnames no
obvious problemsseem to exist, with the exception of nomina similissima (Art. 64.2). Concerning
specificnames, however, a loophole was provided,due to Art. 72, Note 1: new combinationsbased
on an illegitimatename (in this case, a later homonym of a previouslyvalidly publishedname) are
treatedas names of new taxa or as nomina nova, even withoutthe explicit knowledgeor intentionof
the newly combiningauthor.... This was arguedat lengthby Nicolson (1978), but withoutpointing
out what appearsto us as a contradictionwith Art. 11.3: "the correctname is the combinationof the
final epithet of the earliestlegitimatename of the taxon in the same rank,with the correctname of
the genus ... to which it is assigned."A few exceptionsare mentioned,but not Art. 72, Note 1!When
we considerthe Talinumpolyandrumexample,the new combinationCalandriniapolyandra(Hooker)
Benthamis not the correctname (accordingto Art. 11.3), but CalandriniapolyandraBenthamis the
correctname (accordingto Art. 72, Note 1).
' Leerstoelvoor Morfologie,Systematieken Ecologie van de Planten, K. L. Ledeganckstraat,35,
B.9000, Gent, Belgium.
MAY 1986
321
It has been argued(Raynal, 1972: 107) that such nomenclaturalisticprocedures(or rathertricks?)
arenot in favourof a cleartreatmentof the mentionedproblems,as shown in the followingexamples.
In our opinion a finaleliminationof illegitimatenames seems more advantageousfor our supposed
goal, the ultimate stability of names. Therefore,accordingto a sound principle:once illegitimate,
alwaysillegitimate(Art. 6.4), we would preferthe deletion of Art. 72, Note 1.
This does imply that, if no other names are available,the mentioned illegitimatename must be
replacedby a nomen novum, explicitlypublishedas such.
If however,no majoritywould exist in favourof a deletion, then at least a recommendationon the
citation of such unintendedsubstitutesand their authorsshould be added to Art. 72. This also was
mentioned by Raynal (1972: 107), but his observation did not receive the general attention. He
proposed to cite the author of the illegitimate combination (the later homonym) between square
brackets.
Althoughwe agreethat such way of citation may be rathercumbersome,it has the advantageof
showingmuch more of the taxon'snomenclaturaland taxonomichistory,by referringto the essential
step, the firstdescription!Of course,once this principlewould be recognized,the exactway of citation
could be consideredas a merelyeditorialmatter.
Example 1. We have chosen the problemalreadypointed out by Raynal(1972: 107), becauseit is
nicely illustrativefor the difficultiesarisingwhen practisingArt. 72, Note 1.
The speciesScirpusiridifoliusPoir. (1805) was publishedas a laterhomonym of S. iridifoliusBory
(1804), now known as Machaerinairidifolia(Bory)Koyama. The former species was first put into
Lepidospermaas L. iridifolium[Poir.]Willd. ex Link and afterwards,more correctlyinto Baumea as
B. iridifolia[Poir.](Willd. ex Link) B6ck. If however both generaare united, as is done by several
authors,then in suchMachaerinas.l. our speciesmust be calledM. flexuosa (B6ck.)Kern,on account
of the epithetiridifoliusbeingpreoccupied.Wouldit not be easierif the homonymicbasionymwould
be declaredillegitimateand consequentlyunavailableonce and forever,by abolishingthe nomenclaturaltrickdisplayedin Art. 72, Note 1.
In that way, the mentioned species could bear the same epithet (flexuosa) in Baumea and in
Machaerina;moreover,likely confusionbetweenthe two species would come to an end.
Example2. Brachiariascalaris Pilger is based upon Panicum scalare Mez, non Schweinf.If this
homonymicbasionymis to be saved,we wouldlike to see a referenceto Mez' descriptionas Brachiaria
scalaris [Mez]Pilger.
Actuallywe preferthe rejectionof the homonymicbasionymand all names based on it, according
to the rulingunder formerCodes, which had indeed caused the creationof replacingnames, in this
case Brachiariaheterocraspeda
(Peter)Pilger.
A thirdpossibleway to reachour goal (the stabilityof plantnames)is ratherunorthodox,yet partly
acceptedby the bioscientificcommunity.Let us face the problem:by digginginto the vast taxonomic
literature,continuousname changeswill occurand continuousamendationof the Code will be needed
in orderto regulatenewlyrevealedsituations.So, why wouldwe not tryto establisha kind of'Standard
Listof SpecificNames,'withor withoutrejectednames,to a certaindegreecomparableto the Approved
Lists of BacterialNames (Skermanet al., 1980), althoughour proposedStandardList could go further
by includingsynonyms.A list of conservednames serves stabilityand is more efficientlyconsulted
than is the whole of taxonomicand floristicliterature.
Acknowledgments
We wouldlike to expressour sincerethanksto Dr. D. H. Nicolson (US) for his interestingcomments
on the firstdraft,which greatlystimulateda rethinkingof the problem.
LiteratureCited
Haines, R. and K. Lye. 1983. The sedges and rushesof East Africa.East AfricanNaturalHistory
Society,Nairobi. 404 pp., 794 fig.
Henrard,J. T. 1950. Monographof the genus Digitaria. UniversitairePers, Leiden. XXI + 999
pp., ill.
Nicolson, D. H. 1978. Illegitimate'basionyms,'impact on priorityand authorcitation or, the rise
of Desmodiumincanumand fall of D. canum (Fabaceae).Taxon 27: 365-370.
322
TAXON
VOLUME
35
Raynal,J. 1972. Notes cyperologiques:17.-R&vision des CladiumP. Brownes. lat. (Cyperaceae)
de Madagascaret des Mascareignes.Adansonia,ser. 2, 12: 103-112, 3 pl.
Skerman,V. B. D., V. McGowanand P. H. A. Sneath. 1980. Approvedlists of bacterialnames. Int.
Journ.Syst. Bact. 30: 225-420.
SPECIES EPITHETS AND GENDER INFORMATION
"Partesorationisquot sunt?Octo. Quae?Nomen pronomenverbum adverbiumparticipiumconiunctio praepositiointeriecto."Donati De PartibusOrationisArs Minor.
Dan H. Nicolson'
Summary
Adjectives(includingparticiples)and nouns are regularlyused as species epithets.Nouns maintain
theirgenderand aregrammaticallyindependentof the genericnamebut adjectivesindicatethe gender
of the genericname to the extent they have three, two or only one ending(s)in nominative singular.
Generalizationsand exceptionsare presentedwith examples.
EarlyLatingrammars,such as the Ars Minor of Donatus (fl. 350 A.D.), the most commonly used
grammarfrom 400 to 1500 A.D., treated nouns (nomina) as including substantives(nomina substantiva)and adjectives(nomina adjectiva).Eventuallythey came to be treatedas differentparts of
speech.
Article23.5 of the InternationalCodeof BotanicalNomenclatureprovidesthat "Thespecificepithet,
when adjectivalin form and not used as a substantive,agreesgrammaticallywith the genericname."
This papercannot deal with the complex, often controversial,problemsof correctgenderof generic
names and deals only with genderinformationreflectedby species (and infraspecific)epithets.When
genderis cited, it appearsas a single-letterabbreviation,i.e., m. (masculine),f. (feminine),and n.
(neuter).
Only threepartsof speechare regularlyused for species (or infraspecific)epithets:nouns (substantives), adjectives, and participles.Other parts of speech: pronouns, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions,
prepositions,and interjections,are rarelyused and, if used, should be treatedas if they were nouns.
1. Nouns. A noun (a substantivein the sense of the Code) is definedas "a word that is the name
of a subjectof discourse,as person, place, thing, quality,idea, or action." For purposesof botanical
nomenclature,nouns may be divided into two kinds, propernouns that name a particularbeing or
thingand commonnounsthat name a class or groupof beingsor things,includingabstractions.Proper
nouns were commonly capitalizedin early worksand, underan option includedin Rec. 73F. 1, may
continueto be capitalized.For purposesof this paper,I use the traditionof capitalizingpropernames
and certainadjectivesderived from propernames, therebypreservingsome of the grammaticalinformationcarriedby these epithets.
Nouns maintaintheir own gender,numberand case and, unlike adjectivesand participles,do not
concordwith the gender,numberand case of the genericname except by coincidence.Nouns appear
eitherin nominativeor genitive case and are grammaticallyreferredto as 'nouns in apposition,'that
is, as an adjunctterm.
1.1. Nouns in nominative:Nouns in nominative case are often proper,being former generic or
vernacularnames, e.g., DiospyrosEbenus,AesculusHippocastanum,and DianthusCaryophyllus(formergenericnames,now the basesof familynames),Zea Mays,AcaciaJulibrissin,NicotianaTabacum
(vernacularnames).
However, common nouns sometimes appearin nominative, e.g., Rubus amnicola (river dweller,
m.), Lepidiumarbuscula(little tree, f.) and Anthuriumlancea (lance, f.). These common nouns are
sometimes treatedas adjectives,hence, Anthuriummonticolum(instead of monticola,m.), Chenopodium hybridumand Amaranthushybridus(insteadof hybrida,f.). In botanicalLatin, eitherway is
possible for such classicalnouns and the assumptionshould be that a noun is meant (i.e., an epithet
Departmentof BotanyNHB166, SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,DC 20560, U.S.A.
MAY 1986
323