Misspelled names for cacti

[Brunãozinho]

Actually Sylv rubrispinus is correctly used in the name for some cacti:-

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/tro-5107885" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.tropicos.org/Name/5101522" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But in the case of the Echinocereus the original authors decided to call it rubispinus and unless something is an obvious spelling mistake (which neither of those spellings are) under the "rules" later authors cannot change them. It's probably because "rubrispinus" is the more common name for red spined cacti that the Echinocereus gets mistakenly changed to it. A name is just a handle to identify plants, it does not even need to be appropriate, and as long as the original author follows the "rules" they can call it what they like and later authors can only modify the spelling of the name in extremely limited circumstances.

In this case, from what I undestand, both "rubrispinus" and "rubispinus" would be correct, since they can either refer to the latin words "rubrum" or "rubus", both meaning "red" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

But what about names like Pereskia and Pereskiopsis, wich refer to french botanist Mr. Peiresc. Don't authors care about "correcting" them and referring to him in a better way?

[DaveW]

I believe David Hunt has corrected names like Mammillaria buxbaumeriana (named after Franz Buxbaum) to M. buxbaumiana, but some maintain this is incorrect as the original author knew how to spell Buxbaum therefore deliberately spelt it that way. Also Lobivia famatimensis he corrected to L. famatinensis since it is named after a place called Famatina. Again some queried whether the original author knew that and deliberately spelt it that way, therefore it was not an unintentional spelling mistake.

As an extreme example Lobivia is an anagram of Bolivia, but we do not say the spelling should be corrected to Bolivia since it was obvious the original author had taken the country name and modified it to produce the generic name he wanted. You can use any name as a root and modify it how you wish to form a generic or specific name provided it complies with the rules.

As I said previously, a plant name is just a handle to identify it by however it is constructed. The question as to whether it can be legally changed is whether it was an unintentional spelling mistake or whether the original author deliberately misspelt it to form their new name as long as that spelling conforms to the rules. The problem is often the original authors are now dead and cannot be asked if it was a spelling mistake or a deliberate change.

From the link below:-

"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)."

"60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographic or orthographic errors and the standardization imposed by Arts. 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens) and 60.10 (terminations; see also Art.32.5).

This means that you cannot change the spelling of a name according to your taste or current fashion. You may only (and sometimes must) change the spelling when the original author did not form a name according to the rules."

http://ina.tmsoc.org/announce/icbn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the next link:-

"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. 32.7), 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"."

http://www.ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/00 ... ec1a60.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many of the rules are beyond me Bruno and even those conversant with them often disagree how they should be interpreted and when applied.

[phil_SK]

I believe David Hunt has corrected names like Mammillaria buxbaumeriana (named after Franz Buxbaum) to M. buxbaumiana, but some maintain this is incorrect as the original author knew how to spell Buxbaum therefore deliberately spelt it that way. Also Lobivia famatimensis he corrected to L. famatinensis since it is named after a place called Famatina. Again some queried whether the original author knew that and deliberately spelt it that way, therefore it was not an unintentional spelling mistake.

I take these as different types of error. In the first case, the author may have known how to spell Buxbaum but they didn't know how to Latinise it in accordance with the rules (Recommendation 60C). These are straightforwardly wrong and should be written in their correct form and the correction doesn't need an official publication. If you ever look up names in IPNI you'll see that they're often recorded in the corrected form - see example. jajoana (not jajoiana) and fidana (not fidaiana) fall into this category.

famatim/nensis fits better with the situation Dave describes. I really don't know whether this should be corrected or not. Parodia lenninghausii is another interesting example - see http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page ... 2/mode/1up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DaveW]

As I said I seem to recall that somebody questioned Hunt correcting buxbaumeriana at the time Phil. Hunt may have been correct, but evidently some do not like any names being changed from what the original author intended. The "rules" often get changed eventually if people do not like how they are being applied, or occasionally somebody proposes it should be a conserved name even though it contravenes to existing rules.

Personally I much prefer buxbaumiana to buxbaumeriana, though I cannot believe that spelling was because they did not know how to Latinise the ending given their familiarity with other plant names and their endings.

As to Pereskia Bruno, to quote Britton & Rose, Vol 1, P.9:-

"Peseskia (Plumier) Miller, Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4. 1754.

Type species Cactus pereskia Linnaeus"

The name of the type species was later changed to P. aculeata. I presume that is because unlike the Zoological Code the Botanical Code does not allow tautonyms, therefore the specific name must not repeat that of the genus so the next valid name P. aculeata has to be used for Linnaeus's Cactus pereskia:-

"In the current rules for botanical nomenclature (which apply retroactively), tautonyms are explicitly prohibited. One example of a botanical tautonym is 'Larix larix'. The earliest name for the European larch is Pinus larix L. (1753) but Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten did not agree with the placement of the species in Pinus and decided to move it to Larix in 1880. His proposed name created a tautonym. Under rules first established in 1906, which are applied retroactively, 'Larix larix' does not and cannot exist (as a formal name). In such a case either the next earliest validly published name must be found, in this case Larix decidua Mill. (1768), or (in its absence) a new epithet must be published."

According to Byles Dictionary of the Cactaceae, as you say Bruno the persons name was N. C. Fabrey de Peiresc, therefore theoretically it should have been "Cactus peirescia" not C. pereskia if named after him. However it looks as if the genus itself was actually named after the specific name of Linnaeus's Cactus pereskia rather than the person, therefore presumably it would not need correcting being named after a misspelt plant since most of Linnaeus's names seem to have been conserved names, even if incorrectly spelt?

[Brunãozinho]

True, I never thought about it, that we sometimes see animals with tautonymous names, but this never happens to plants.
So the Pereskia genus name came from an earlier species name, I think like it happened to Mammillaria then.

It also came to mind the name Cereus fernambucencis, wich should refer to the Brazilian state of Pernambuco.

[DaveW]

I think there was even originally an Opuntia opuntia which had to be renamed. The situation also is where the Romans had a Latin name for the area that is usually used instead of the native countries name. For instance the Roman occupation name Cantabrigia is used for the English town of Cambridge for any plants named after it, since plants names are Latinised if possible if there is a pre-existing Latin name for the area:-

http://www.botanic.cam.ac.uk/Botanic/Pl ... d=0&ppid=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore you could see any of the following names used in the Latin names of plants if they wanted to commemorate British towns:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_La ... in_Britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As to Fernambuco and not Pernambuco I am not sure why F and P were exchanged. I never did Latin at school so my Latin is non existent, but I seem to recall the Romans originally did not have any letters for the Greek sounds F and K, therefore had to invent their own sounds using PH and CH for them, even though they later adopted the Greek F and K. Which is why English still is burdened with PH for words like Phillip instead of the much more logical Fillip, Fone or Filosophy, Similarly CH for Christopher and Christmas instead of Kristofer and Kristmas!

[Brunãozinho]

Interesting informations Dave. At least here there is only the native name for places.