(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status

Abstract

Some epithets with the same spelling can sometimes be interpreted as falling into different grammatical categories, particularly both as adjectives (including participles) and nouns, according to their traditional use in botany. Examples of these include nouns that can be treated as adjectives (colonus, hybrida), compound epithets in which the last noun may be treated as adjectival (-derma, -folium, -rhiza, -sperma, -spora), or epithets in which endings are formed from certain verbs (-fer, -ger, -fuga, -gena). Authors publishing new names rarely explicitly indicate whether their epithets are intended as adjectives or nouns. As a result, other authors subsequently making combinations may inconsistently choose one form or the other, generating nomenclatural instability when their spellings differ. The situation is common enough to have motivated discussions in the past about how to treat these epithets, and even to be explicitly regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN; Ride & al., Int. Code Zool. Nomencl., ed. 4. 1999 & https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/). The provisions in Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN rule that, in case of doubt, these epithets are to be treated as nouns in apposition. However, this may not always be appropriate in botany. While some of these epithets are often used as nouns in apposition and others are commonly or preferably treated as adjectives (Nicolson in Taxon 35: 323–328. 1986), it is difficult to argue that the more common form is the only correct one following the nomenclatural tradition (e.g. although epithets ending in -fer and -ger are frequently adjectives, they may be nouns in apposition, see Clements, Greek and Latin in Biol. Nomencl. 1902, and Buchanan in Bull. Bact. Nomen. Tax. 6: 101–110. 1956). Since disparate choices have been made depending on the authors or tradition within taxonomic groups, a clear and objective way to ascertain the form that should be used is needed, both agreeing with botanical tradition and preserving nomenclatural stability. Otherwise, under the current provisions of the Code, these cases will always remain unclear or be the subject of debate. A series of proposals for the last two International Botanical Congresses in Melbourne and Shenzhen (Niederle in Taxon 59: 984. 2010; 65: 415. 2016) partially addressed this issue. Unfortunately, Niederle's proposals were problematic for different reasons. The changes proposed in 2010 included adding to Art. 23.5 that word elements -fuga and -gena were always treated as nouns, while epithets ending in -fer, -fera, -ferum, -ger, -gera, -gerum were adjectival. Among the comments from the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne, the proposal was branded as “overly prescriptive and partly wrong” by Gereau (see Flann & al. in PhytoKeys 41: 98. 2014), noting that, for example, the word element -fuga can be declined as an adjective, as in febrifugum. I would also add that an epithet such as nubigenus, -a, -um, which was defined as “nonsense” by Niederle in 2016, could make perfect sense as a final epithet under, e.g., a genus of gasteroid fungi with powdery glebal mass, or of apotheciate Pezizales, “producing clouds” when the spores are released (a figurative use of epithets is not forbidden, and not even uncommon). The 2016 proposals were notoriously problematic because of the addition of the word “demonstrably” and the simultaneous removal of the last clause in Art. 23.5: “In particular, the usage of the word element -cola as an adjective is a correctable error”, which concept was moved to a Note. These suggested changes raised an important problem, which was a potential acceptance of terminations like -colus or -colum as adjectives when “not demonstrably used as nouns”. One could argue that an author deliberately using final epithets with terminations agreeing in gender with a generic name was indeed using them as adjectives (see, e.g., Nicolson, l.c.), but that would reverse a rule standing in the Code for more than two decades. Therefore, in Shenzhen, the proposals were rejected again and one of the comments from Hawksworth was precisely the opposition to reverse the decision on the ending -cola (see Lindon & al. in PhytoKeys 150: 111. 2020). In my present proposal, I leave the choice to the first author who decided on one use or the other, considering that this would be the least disruptive option for regulating these cases. It also makes clear that this affects only epithets for which both forms are considered correct taking into account the Code as a whole, so it does not create a conflict with any other Article, Note or Example. If some word elements might require a more stringent regulation in the future, they could be added to Art. 23.5 after -cola. Likewise, cross-referenced Recommendations may be included when considered appropriate, e.g. the Code may recommend some epithets to be preferably treated either as adjectives or as nouns, so authors can take that into account when choosing one of the alternative grammatical forms for the first time. The new rule would be parallel to others in the Code, when the choice among two or more correct options is determined by a nomenclatural act by the first author who takes a decision; e.g. establishing priority among legitimate names or final epithets under Art. 11.5, or choosing a gender for generic names under Art. 62.3 when gender is not apparent and the original author did not make the choice. The alternative spellings that could be generated by alternative choices would not be orthographical variants, as clearly stated in Art. 61 Ex. 2, and are not covered elsewhere in the Code. Some readers may be particularly concerned about the second Example I have chosen (Erigeron florifer, see below), because the outcome is exactly the opposite to the one from Niederle's proposals, where the epithet was interpreted as an adjective, whereas here it is a noun in apposition. However, I find it highly illustrative because it demonstrates that the epithet in E. florifer has been unambiguously treated as a noun in apposition at least from Gray in 1880 to Cronquist in 1950, while today it is not clear which form should be used. A quick Google search (27 October 2022) retrieved results in the same order of magnitude for both “Townsendia florifer” (2030 results) and “Townsendia florifera” (1100 results) (73 vs 11 results, respectively, in Google Scholar), and some digging into the results demonstrates that the accepted spelling varies from source to source, while it is true that there has been some drift towards accepting the adjectival form, even in some databases such as IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/). However, as explained above, this choice has no basis under the Code, it is contrary to its unambiguous usage until 1950, and it is not accepted in other databases (e.g. ITIS, https://www.itis.gov/). More concerning is that the alteration of florifer to florifera has implied listing the final epithet as florifera even under the masculine genera Erigeron, Haplopappus and Stenotus (e.g. in the Catalogue of Life, https://www.catalogueoflife.org/), as if it was a noun in apposition but with an altered spelling, something obviously wrong. These examples (which could be editorially shortened if needed) demonstrate that no nomenclatural stability has been reached yet. “23.n. When the final epithet of a name can be interpreted as belonging to two different grammatical categories (e.g. an adjective and a noun), both being correct under the rules, a subsequent author may choose (directly or indirectly) one of those categories, and the first such choice to be effectively published (Art. 29–31) is to be followed.” “Ex. n1. The final epithet in Ruellia hybrida Pursh (Fl. Amer. Sept. 2: 420. 1813) may be considered either as a noun in apposition or a feminine adjective, neither option being indicated in the protologue. When the final epithet was combined as Dipteracanthus ciliosus var. hybridus (Pursh) Nees (in Candolle, Prodr. 11: 123. 1847), Nees chose to treat it as an adjective, and his choice is to be followed.” “Ex. n2. The final epithet in Erigeron florifer, as so spelled by Hooker (Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 20. 1834), could be interpreted as a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition, because this information was not provided in the protologue. The final epithet was subsequently combined in Haplopappus (as ‘Aplopappus’) by Hooker & Arnott (Bot. Beechey Voy.: 351. 1839) and in Stenotus by Torrey & Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 2: 238. 1842), but no choice of either form was performed there. The first choice was made by Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 16: 84. 1880), who published the combination Townsendia florifer, thus treating the final epithet as a noun in apposition. This choice was subsequently followed in, e.g., T. florifer var. communis M. E. Jones (in Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, 5: 697. 1895) and T. florifer var. watsonii (A. Gray) Cronquist (in Leafl. W. Bot. 6: 49. 1950, ‘Watsoni’). The epithet “florifer” is therefore treated as a noun in apposition and is not to be altered to the adjectival “florifera” or “floriferum” in combinations under feminine or neuter generic names.” “Ex. n3. When Peziza lachnoderma Berk. (in Hooker, Bot. Antarct. Voy., III, Fl. Tasman. 2: 274. 1859) was published, Berkeley did not indicate whether the final epithet was a noun in apposition or a feminine adjective, and both interpretations are possible. A combination made by Rehm (in Ber. Naturhist. Augsburg 26: 76. 1881), currently accepted in Dasyscyphus, did not effect a choice because, at that time, Rehm combined the final epithet under a feminine orthographical variant of the generic name, “Dasyscypha”. The first choice was made by Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 3: 446. 1898), who effectively published the combination Atractobolus lachnoderma (Berk.) Kuntze under a masculine generic name, unambiguously using the final epithet as a noun in apposition, a choice that is to be followed.” I want to express my greatest thanks to Luis A. Parra and W. Greuter for previous discussions and clarifications about the topic of this proposal, as well as to J. McNeill for his helpful revisions of the text.