(233–240) Proposals on orthography: Epithets honouring persons

Abstract

To eliminate a “back-door rule”, Rec. 60C.1 in the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) was moved into Art. 60.8 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), but in doing so the opening sentence was rewritten. The Shenzhen wording introduces several new issues, one of which is the added phrase “derived from personal names”. This can be read variously, but could include any, or all, of the following: translations of personal names into Latin (or another language), anagrams of personal names (like celiae for Alice Leblanc), epithets based on initials (armianus from Anthony R. Mitchell) and personal names combined with another word (chrisolum for Chris Rodgerson and Latin “solus”; arthurolfago for Arthur Tischer, Rolf Rawé and Latin “ago” from the verb “agere”). This wide interpretation has two problems: (1) it is not compatible with clauses (a)–(d) of Art. 60.8, which prescribe how a personal name is to be converted into an epithet by adding a termination (and which say nothing about words “derived from personal names”) and (2) this would require several additional classes of epithets to be examined for correctability or require exceptions to be made to Art. 60.8, as was proposed for abbreviations of personal names (Prop. 186, McNeill & al. in Taxon 71: 1340–1341. 2022). A second issue is the new blanket exception made for “personal names that are already in Greek or Latin or that possess a well-established latinized form”. There are supposed to be two ways of forming specific or infraspecific epithets based on personal names. That is, as detailed in Art. 60.8(a)–(d) for modern names, or by regular Latin grammar (for personal names already in Greek or Latin and for personal names that have been properly latinized): an epithet based on Martius can be either martiusii (by Art. 60.8) or martii (by Latin grammar). The new blanket exception allows a user to read here that Martius is entirely excepted from the scope of Art. 60.8, so that epithets like martiusi or martiusiensis are allowable. Obviously this is not what is intended. A further issue is that whether a latinization is acceptable (or not) is regulated by Art. 60.9. This does not recognize any such concept as a “well-established latinized form”, but rather that of “intentional latinizations”. Article 60.9 allows any (intentional) latinization (as long as it does not involve only the terminal letter, in which case restrictions apply), no matter if it is a well-established form or a one-of-a-kind effort, or anything in between. To make Art. 60.8 and 60.9 work well together it appears necessary to eliminate the “well-established latinized form” from the opening sentence of Art. 60.8 while also referring to Art. 60.9. The phrase “well-established latinized form” belongs in Rec. 60C.1, where it is placed in context. “60.8. When a specific or infraspecific epithet is formed by adding a termination to a personal name (see Rec. 23A.1), this is done as follows (but see Art. 60.9 and Art. 60 Note 5):” [Current wording: “60.8. The termination of specific or infraspecific epithets derived from personal names that are not already in Greek or Latin and do not possess a well-established latinized form (see Rec. 60C.1) is as follows:”] The proposed phrasing fits Art. 60.8(a)–(d) and is close in intent to the opening sentence of Rec. 60C.1 of the Melbourne Code but uses “termination” rather than “Latin termination”. This accords not only with the present phrasing but also with the provision starting “Terminations contrary […]” (the Melbourne Art. 60.12). That implies that terminations added to personal names are correctable, regardless of the language of the termination. As shown above, the Shenzhen listing of exceptions fails in several respects but is redundant anyway because the exceptions are explicitly ruled elsewhere: a listing of existing exceptions belongs in a Note rather than a rule. It would be helpful, for purposes of referring to it, if the provision that was the Melbourne Art. 60.12, now starting “Terminations contrary […]” would receive a separate number, just like it has had for decades. In its present form, Art. 60.8 is uncomfortably long. The same could apply to the final (main text) paragraph of Art. 60.10 (“Adjectival epithets not formed […]”). “60.9. When the spelling of a name or epithet used at valid publication resulted from the intentional latinization of a personal, geographical, or vernacular name, this original spelling (Art. 60.2) is to be retained (Art. 60.1). Excepted from this are epithets formed from personal names when the latinization involves (a) only a termination to which Art. 60.8 applies, or (b) only (1) omission of the terminal vowel or terminal consonant or (2) conversion of the terminal vowel to a different vowel, for which the omitted or converted letter is to be restored.” [Current wording: “60.9. When changes in spelling by authors who adopt personal, geographical, or vernacular names in nomenclature are intentional latinizations, they are to be preserved, except, in epithets formed from personal names, when they concern (a) only a termination to which Art. 60.8 applies, or (b) personal names in which the changes involve only (1) omission of the terminal vowel or terminal consonant or (2) conversion of the terminal vowel to a different vowel, for which the omitted or converted letter is to be restored.”] In the opening sentence of Art. 60.9, the “by authors” is a remnant of “by earlier authors” present in this provision from the Stockholm Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 3. 1952) up to the Berlin Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 118. 1988), presumably intended to mark latinization as a practice from the past, not continuable in the present. This is out of place in a retroactive rule, so the “earlier” was removed; the remnant “by authors” has no function: all new names and epithets are formed by authors. The phrase “changes in spelling” here refers to the process of latinization of “personal, geographical, or vernacular names” and is confusing in a chapter on correct spellings of (scientific) names. Both elements can be eliminated without loss for a gain in clarity. “Note 5. […] Epithets resulting from or derived from such Latin translations fall under Rec. 60C.1 and are not subject to standardization under Art. 60.8, although Rec. 60C.1 and 60C.2 may apply.” In (pre-)Linnaean times, authors often adopted a Latin pen name for themselves (see Stearn, Bot. Latin, ed. 4: 282–284. 1992), including translating their name. To such Latin names, Rec. 60C.1 applies, as well as 60C.2: tradition has indeed turned these pen names into “names already in Greek or Latin, or that possess a well-established latinized form”. But translations may have other causes: the epithet nobilis in Wollemia nobilis does not imply an intent to refer to a Latin personal name Nobilis. Similarly, the epithets in Avonia mallei (honouring Stephen A. Hammer) and Byrsonima baccae (honouring Paul E. Berry) are just wordplay, part of the freedom that an author has in forming an epithet. “Ex. n1. Melaleuca fabri Craven (in Austral. Syst. Bot. 12: 876. 1999) honours Basil and Mary Smith, with fabri the translation into Latin of the name Smith, in the nominative plural, as a noun in apposition. This epithet was not formed by adding a termination to a personal name (Art. 60.8), but is just a translation to a Latin word. Although this practice is not recommended, the epithet is to be accepted in its original spelling (and is not to be altered to “fabrorum”).” “Ex. n2. The epithet, in apposition, in Crataegus spes-aestatum J. B. Phipps (in Novon 16: 382. 2006) honours Bill Summers, one person, but the genitive plural (“aestatum”) is not to be altered to the singular. The epithet is just a translation to Latin.” “60.9bis. For a specific or infraspecific epithet formed from two or more parts, with the part in final position a personal name to which a termination is added, the provisions of Art. 60.8 and 60.9 apply equally to the part of the epithet formed from that personal name.” “Ex. n1. The epithet in Vochysia hannekesaskiae Marc.-Berti (in Pittieria 18: 7. 1989) is dedicated to the wife and two daughters of the author; in total three persons, two of whom are named Hanneke and one Saskia. Although such a practice is not recommended, this epithet is not to be altered, because the correct termination was added to the personal name Saskia (in final position), which refers to a single person. However, the epithet in Qualea ‘hannekesaskiarum’ Marc.-Berti (in Pittieria 13: 5. 1986), dedicated to the two daughters of the author (i.e. Hanneke and Saskia), is to be corrected to the singular.” “Ex. n2. The epithet in Cestrum ‘johnniegentrianum’ D'Arcy (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 60: 601. 1974) is composed of a given name and a surname (“Nomen Johannis L. Gentryi […] designatur”). The component in final position is a personal name, Gentry, to which a termination is added: the final part of the epithet is correctable and the name is to be cited as Cestrum johnniegentryanum.” It seems fairly clear that the spirit of Art. 60.8 is to standardize terminations of epithets, but its wording deals with converting personal names to epithets. This leaves a vacuum when an epithet is composed of more than just a personal name, especially if dedicated to several persons (in the proposed Example, no entity with the personal name “Hannekesaskia” exists, but separate persons with separate personal names do). Only a termination added to the personal name in final position should be correctable. The same applies to epithets composed of several personal names (e.g. given name + surname), in various permutations, and also to epithets combining a personal name with another word (flos-, etc.) or a prefix (pseudo-, neo-, etc.). “60(new1). When dedicating a name to a person, authors should preferably form the new epithet by adding a termination to the personal name (surname, given name, or nickname) as described in Art. 60.8, unless Rec. 60C.1 or 60C.2 applies.” “Ex. n. An epithet such as that in Verhulstia trisororum Hern.-Rest. (in Persoonia 39: 449. 2017), dedicated to “the three sisters Jikke, Anoek and Elke Verhulst, who collected the soil sample from which the fungus was isolated”, while perfectly permissible (and understandable here as it avoids the near-tautonym ‘Verhulstia verhulstiarum’), in general is not recommended as it does not signal that it honours persons.” As the Code stands, an author desiring to honour a person is in no way required to use Art. 60.8 in forming an epithet. However, a Recommendation to do so would be useful. Notwithstanding the freedom of authors to publish an epithet in any form they want when honouring a person, epithets formed by adding a termination to a personal name will, in general, be more effective in making clear the identity of the person(s) honoured by an epithet. For example, an epithet amicorum, used in modern times to honour a group of friends, while perfectly allowable, does not signal that it honours persons. Traditionally, the epithet amicorum is geographical in nature (“from the Friendly Islands” = from Tonga). “60(new2). When forming an epithet from a word derived from a personal name, such as an abbreviation of a personal name, an anagram, its initials, etc., authors should follow the Recommendations made in this Code for personal names as far as possible.” This could be supported by Examples of such cases as mentioned in the introduction (above) or those provided in Prop. 186 (McNeill & al., l.c. 2022). The Etymological Dictionary of Succulent Plant Names by Eggli and Newton was used to find epithets that were derived from personal names in uncommon ways.