(073–075) Proposals to clarify the status of epithets in the ablative case

Abstract

Article 23 in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) is unclear about whether species names with epithets in the ablative case are validly published, even though botanical tradition has regarded such names as unacceptable and the Berlin, Tokyo, Saint Louis, Vienna, and Melbourne Codes regarded such names as not validly published (Garland in Taxon. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12455). This lack of clarity arises because Art. 23.6(a) only prohibits phrase names (Linnaean “nomina specifica legitima”), i.e. diagnostic polynomial names usually in the ablative case, not binomial epithets (Linnaean “nomina trivialia”) in the ablative case. Moreover, the Shenzhen Code added Solanum fructu-tecto Cav., which has an epithet in the ablative case, to Art. 60 Ex. 41, implying that the name is validly published. The following proposals are offered to make the Code clearly state that names with epithets in the ablative case are not validly published. Proposal (073) is one alternative. Proposal (074) is another alternative that may better fit the current structure of Art. 23, in which Art. 23.1 is a positive statement about what a species name can be and Art. 23.6 is a series of negative statements about what a species name cannot be. If either alternative is accepted, Prop. (075) should be accepted as well. Proposal (075) makes clear that Art. 23.7 applies only to Linnaean names with epithets in the form of ablative phrases, not to all Linnaean names with phrase epithets, and that, despite the prohibition on epithets in the ablative case, such Linnaean names are validly published and correctable. Proposal (075) also deletes Solanum fructu-tecto from Art. 60 Ex. 41. “23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, but not a phrase in the ablative case (see also Art. 23.6 and 23.7). […]” “Ex. 1. Adiantum capillus-veneris, Atropa bella-donna, Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Embelia sarasinorum, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Impatiens noli-tangere, Papaver rhoeas, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet), Uromyces fabae, but not Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4: 5. 1797).” [23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as species names:] “(x) Designations consisting of a generic name followed by an epithet in the form of a phrase in the ablative case (but see Art. 23.7).” “Ex. 11bis. Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4: 5. 1797) is a generic name followed by an epithet in the form of a phrase in the ablative case. It is not to be regarded as a species name.” “23.7. Names in which Linnaeus used phrases in the ablative case Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (“nomina trivialia”) are to be corrected in accordance with later usage by Linnaeus himself (but see Art. 23.6(c)).” [Art. 60] “Ex. 41. Hyphen to be maintained: Athyrium austro-occidentale Ching (in Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occid. Sin. 6: 152. 1986); Enteromorpha roberti-lamii H. Parriaud (in Botaniste 44: 247. 1961), in which the given name and surname stand independently because they are separately latinized; Piper pseudo-oblongum McKown (in Bot. Gaz. 85: 57. 1928); Ribes non-scriptum (Berger) Standl. (in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8: 140. 1930); Solanum fructu-tecto Cav. (Icon. 4: 5. 1797); Vitis novae-angliae Fernald (in Rhodora 19: 146. 1917).”