TOWARDS A CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF ORTHOGRAPHIC VARIANCE

Abstract

It is now established (Rickett & Stafleu, Taxon 8: 298. 1959, and I.C.B.N. 274. 1961) that the conserved generic name Humiria is to be attributed to Aublet (1775), although that author employed the spelling Houmiri. The sole reason for the conservation is the preservation of a preferred orthography and the only Article of the Code which is abrogated is Art. 73 which calls for the retention of original spellings. Ridkett and Stafleu note that the conserved spelling was introduced by Jaume Saint-Hilaire (1805) and point out that Houmiria Aublet (1775), orth. mut. A. L. Jussieu, Gen. 435 (1789), is another illegitimate change of spelling. In other words Rickett and Stafleu have taken the view that mere changes in the spelling of a name, without intention to make a new one, are to be regarded as orthographic errors and otherwise disregarded. Thus Lepidostemon adopted by Hasskarl (1844) was a of Lepistemon Bl. (1825); Raphiacme adopted by K. Schumann (1895) was a of Raphionacme Harvey (1842); adopted by Post & (1903) was a correction of Monocarpia Miq. (1865-6). These and all similar corrections must be regarded as errors and not as new names. I have already (Taxon 10: 240-242. 1961) challenged Proskauer's (Taxon 10: 155-156, 1961) treatment of Post & Kuntze as a new name, and have defended the retention of Monocarpus Carr (1956) as a name different from Monocarpia Miq. under the terms of Art. 75 (Examples of names not likely to be confused). I have also (Taxon 11: 124-126. 1962) drawn attention to certain anomalies in the Code relative to orthography. A further commentary on similar lines has been given by Eichler (Taxon 12: 15-20. 1963) incorporating a number of proposals for amendments to the Code. Similar changes in orthography have been published with the avowed intention of coining a new name; in such instances the protologue is unequivocal. For example, Adamea Jacques-F6lix (1952) was published as an avowed substitute (required under Art. 64) for Adamia Jacques-F1lix (1951) non Wallich (1826). I have (Kew Bull. 15: 393. 1962) taken the view that Adamea Jacques-F6lix and Adamia (Wallich) remain homonymous as orthographic variants and have already (loc. cit.) published the substitute name Feliciadamia.