Page Banner

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Title: Proposals to Clarify the Interpretation of Article 60.7 and Its Example 11

Authors
item Wiersema, John
item Nicholson, Daniel - SMITHSONIAN, WASH DC

Submitted to: Taxon
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: December 5, 2004
Publication Date: March 29, 2005
Citation: Wiersema, J.H., Nicholson, D. 2005. Proposals to clarify the interpretation of Article 60.7 and its example 11. Taxon. 53(4):1100-1101.

Interpretive Summary: Accurate scientific names of plants are essential for communication about them including international exchange and trade of plant germplasm. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature governs the accurate scientific names of plants including the species name. Like any set of rules, their interpretation is not always clear or agreed upon by all users. This paper proposes to clarify the rules for determining a species name especially when it is based on a personal name. Several examples are presented. As a result of this addition to the Code, botanists will be able to provide accurate scientific names of plants. The modified Code will be used by botanists to ensure consistency and stability in providing the scientific names and authors of plants.

Technical Abstract: In this proposal to alter the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Article 60.7 is addressed, namely personal name latinization by (a) omission of a final vowel or final consonant, or (b) conversion of a final vowel to another vowel, is to be corrected by restoration of the final letter. There is a conflict between the wording of the Article itself and Ex.11. Article 60.7 states that intentional latinizations "are to be preserved, except when they concern only the termination of epithets to which Art. 60.11 applies". If we consult Art. 60.11 and its associated Rec. 60C.1, it becomes clear what is meant by a "termination" as distinct from the "stem" of the epithet. The intentional latinizations that are being rejected in Ex. 11, on the grounds that "they affect only the termination", actually involve alterations to the stem or to a terminal inflection of the stem, not the termination. Our proposed note seeks to remedy that shortcoming by accounting for each instance treated in Ex. 11.

Last Modified: 10/23/2014
Footer Content Back to Top of Page