(2789) Proposal to conserve the name Pomaderris kumarahou (Rhamnaceae) with that spelling

Abstract

(2789) Pomaderris kumarahou A. Cunn. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 3: 248. Jun 1839 (‘kumeraho') [Angiosp.: Rhamn.], nom. & orth. cons. prop. Typus: [New Zealand, North Island, Bay of Islands] Keri-Keri, at head of boat navigation, Sep 1826, A. Cunningham 36/58 No. 577 (K barcode K000732063; isotypi: FI barcode FI006698, KW barcode KW001003127). The name Pomaderris kumeraho was first published by Fenzl (in Endlicher, Enum. Pl.: 21. 1837), who attributed it to Allan Cunningham (“P. Kumeraho All. Cunningh. msc.”). However, the name was listed in the synonymy of P. elliptica Labill. (Nov. Holl. Pl. 1: 61, t. 86. 1805) var. elliptica and because of that it was not validly published until 1839, when A. Cunningham (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 3: 248. 1839) accepted that name for a New Zealand (North Island) species and provided its full description, geographical information, and comments. The name P. kumeraho is currently accepted for a New Zealand (North Island endemic) species related to the Australian (Tasmanian) P. elliptica but distinct from the latter (Moore in Allan, Fl. New Zealand 1: 419. 1961; Moore in Tane 31: 140. 1986; Walsh & Coates in Muelleria 10: 29. 1997; de Lange & Rolfe, New Zealand Indig. Vasc. Pl. Checkl.: 95. 2010; Schönberger & al., Checkl. New Zealand Fl. – Seed Pl. 2019: 157. 2019, https://doi.org/10.26065/s3gg-v336; Plants of the World Online, 2020–: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:718018-1; Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa – New Zealand Pl. Database: https://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?NameID=3CA4223A-4261-4624-96E9-66246C968285 [all online resources here and below accessed 14 Aug 2020]). The name was lectotypified by Moore (l.c. 1961) by the Allan Cunningham specimen cited above. Moore cited the Kew specimen as “K, No. 577 Keri-Keri Mission Station, R.C., 1834”, but, judging from the original tag (“58” and “1826”) most closely associated with it, the one Kew specimen represents, in fact, the other syntype, that collected by Allan Cunningham in 1826. The specimen was donated to Kew in 1862 by Cunningham's friend and biographer, Robert Heward, who inherited and distributed most of Cunningham's personal herbarium (see Orchard in Telopea 17: 43–86. 2014). Either Heward or Cunningham, himself, labelled under “No. 577” (Cunningham's published species number in his Florae insularum Novae Zelandiae precursor) all the collection information associated with P. kumarahou (including the etymological comment most probably reproduced from the original note made by Richard Cunningham in 1833 or 1834). Images of the lectotype are at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000732063 and https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000732063, and of the isolectotype at the Museo di Storia Naturale dell'Università di Firenze (Florence, Italy) at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.fi006698. For the species epithet, Allan Cunningham (l.c.) took the Māori name, as registered by his brother Richard (“Kumeraho nom. vernaculum. R. Cunningham”), and provided the following explanation in the protologue: “The flowering of this shrub, which takes place in the month of September, the spring of New Zealand, is the signal for the natives to plant their Koomeras or sweet potatoes; hence doubtless originates the name by which they call this plant in the present day.” As there was then no written Māori language, he would have taken it as he heard it or as his brother Richard heard it when the type material was collected in 1826 and 1833–1834, so in the protologue, the epithet was spelt as ‘kumeraho'. In the Māori language (Te Reo Māori), the proper name of this species of Pomaderris is kūmarahou (Māori Dictionary online: https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3250), while in New Zealand English, it is also called gumdigger's soap or golden tainui. It is believed that the name kūmarahou is indeed related to the word kūmara (https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3249), meaning sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Tabl. Encycl. 1: 465. 1793), with the adjectival suffix “hou”, meaning “new”, as was suggested by Cunningham in the protologue (see also Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga – Māori Plant Use Database: http://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz, record ID number 1138). Unfortunately, as was noticed and indicated by one of the authors (Te Ahu Rei), the original and currently accepted spelling kumeraho is contextually an offensive term in Te Reo Māori, since kume is a verb meaning to pull, drag, slide, pull out, stretch, extend, and raho refers to human genitalia, in combination creating an indecent and explicit meaning. Thus, Te Ahu Rei proposed to explore possibilities for changing the epithet so that it corresponded to the correct local name, as Cunningham clearly had intended, and so avoiding the offensive pejorative allusions of the current spelling. Articles 60.1 and 60.3 and the voted Examples 6 and 10 of Art. 60 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) should be considered in our case. In our opinion, the option of correcting the epithet according to relevant provisions of Art. 60 is not applicable here because it will be against Art. 60.3. Also, the original spelling of the protologue cannot be considered a typographical or orthographical error; it was the intended spelling because both Allan and Richard Cunningham consistently used that spelling in their manuscripts (see Fenzl, l.c.) and on herbarium labels (specimens in K and KW, see above); the specimen KW001003127 recently discovered in the Turczaninow historical herbarium at KW has an original label with the etymological notes by Richard Cunningham closely matching the protologue. Moreover, the first Māori dictionary was published in 1844, while Allan Cunningham collected the species in 1826 and Richard Cunningham in 1833 and/or 1834, so Allan Cunningham in publishing the original spelling (as defined by Art. 60.2) of the epithet in 1839 evidently relied only on his notes and records of his brother, all based on oral sources. Also, if this epithet is “automatically corrected”, it may create a precedent for a chain of similar unjustified “corrections” of numerous plant names (generic names and/or species or infraspecific epithets) based on corrupt or erroneous local names of plants. Most of the scientific (Latin/Latinized) plant names based on “corrupt” or “misspelt” (or even intentionally Latinized) local/native names do not need such “corrections”. Otherwise, one should insist, for example, on changing the currently accepted name Cibotium barometz (L.) J. Sm. (in London J. Bot. 1: 437. 1842; based on Polypodium barometz L., Sp. Pl.: 1092. 1753) because its epithet is almost certainly the misspelt Russian word “baranets” (Cyrillric spelling “баранец”, meaning “little male lamb” or “little ram”, referring to the mythical “Vegetable Lamb of Tartary” or “Scythian Lamb”: see Tryon in Amer. Fern J. 47: 1–7. 1957; Appleby in Notes & Rec. Roy. Soc. London 51: 23–34. 1997, and references therein), and indeed, the “corrected” epithet “baranetz” was used by Christ (in Philipp. J. Sci., C 2: 117–118. 1907) and by some other authors. Many other similar examples can be added. Evidently, the offensiveness of a Latin or Latinized name in some other language is not a general reason for its automatic correction, unless that name is a true typographical or orthographical error to be corrected according to Art. 60.1 of the ICN. Also, a “legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known” (Art. 51.1). However, in the present case, we are dealing with an inadvertent corruption of the vernacular name used by the Indigenous people in Te Reo Māori, which resulted in a very different meaning of the epithet in that language. Since that meaning in Te Reo Māori turned out to be indecent and offensive, we think it advisable to use in that case the ad hoc approach and to change the epithet by conserving the name with the conserved spelling corresponding to the actual local name of the plant. Numerous Māori names were used as generic names and/or epithets in scientific names of plants, fungi and animals (see an overview and list by Veale & al. in New Zealand J. Ecol. 43: art. 3388. 2019; also Whaanga & al. in J. Mar. Island Cult. 2: 78–84. 2013), which reflects researchers' interest in, and respect to, the local knowledge and cultures. Many of such names were transliterated or Latinized very close to the original, and some with considerable deviations from the original. However, in contrast to the case of the Pomaderris epithet considered here, we are not aware of any other Te Reo names used as epithets that have been deemed offensive and unacceptable by Māori, so we expect that the proposed conservation will not create a precedent for additional similar proposals. With the growing awareness and interest in national heritage, including aspects related to local natural history knowledge, increasingly more and more Māori people are becoming aware of the scientific names of plants inhabiting Aotearoa/New Zealand, and an encounter with the currently accepted spelling of the epithet of the Pomaderris species locally known as kūmarahou can surely be disappointing and considered indecent and offensive. Moreover, that species is also culturally important in Aotearoa/New Zealand as an ornamental and medicinal plant, especially in the traditional healing system known as Rongoā Māori (see Brooker & Cooper in Econ. Bot. 15: 6. 1961; Cambie in J. Roy. Soc. New Zealand 6: 321. 1976; Brooker & al. in Econ. Bot. 43: 95. 1989; Riley, Māori Healing & Herbal. 1994; Māori Pl. Use Database, l.c., and references therein). However, its use outside New Zealand is limited, so the proposed change in orthography will only minimally affect the users of the scientific name of the plant worldwide. Considering the above arguments, especially the inadvertent but evident offensiveness (as perceived by Māori people) of the epithet in its original spelling, we propose to conserve the name Pomaderris kumarahou with that spelling (Art. 14.11), which properly reflects the common Māori name of the plant, as it was almost certainly the original intention of Allan Cunningham. PJdL, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6699-7083 SLM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-3190 We are grateful to John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) for his valuable advice on nomenclature and his editorial comments and improvements. Comments of Nicholas Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany) and Alexander Sennikov (Botanical Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland & V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) in response to the first author's request when he was considering this problem with orthography at an initial stage are also appreciated.