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

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