(228–232) Proposals on orthography: Diacritical signs

There appear to be two ways read Art. 60.7 in the current Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. Regnum. Veg. 159. 2018). The key question is where diacritical signs are found. was discussion (23–27 Aug 2021 at https://taxacom.markmail.org/) on name Eflugelia after Erik Flügel, some authors having come conclusion that sign needs “to suppressed with necessary transcription of letters so modified”, i.e. a correction spelling would required Efluegelia. Given this established and correctly formed under International Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN; https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/) for taxon has been treated as fossil alga by authors, such lead alternate correct spellings generic name, depending taxonomic placement. As matter principle, unsettling (the protologue shows it more complicated: dedication “E. Flugel”, but also mentions “Flügel”; compare 60 Ex. 7). other sensible way original matters: does spelling? If controlling, Eflugelia, selected author composed perfectly allowable letters, should final. This interpretation supported stated intent 60.1 60.9 history (which were Recommendations IVc XIc 1906, Vienna Rules [Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906], deriving from 27 1867 Lois [Candolle, 1867]). It line treatment 60.4 “letters ligatures foreign classical Latin”, which only transcribed when they “appear scientific names”. A problem approach phrasing first part second sentence requires highly creative reading made fit. languages world use various signs. seems uncertain how many “necessary transcription” there may exist these Is really desirable prescribe one-size-fits-all manner form any word holds sign? Would not simpler leave choice support Recommendation? And have focus afterwards, preferably rarely possible. “60.7. Diacritical used names. When valid publication names (either new or old) drawn words appear, modified; […].” minimalistic fix, that, hopefully, provision can one way. put responsibility setting primarily name. For comparison, ICZN dealing present an spelling. That prescribes deletion (without transcription), except published before 1985 based German word, umlaut (Article 32.5.2.1). indeed umlauts constitute most occurrences […] appears without (é, è, ê become e; ñ becomes n), Germanic ä, ö, ü, transcribed, become, respectively, ae, oe, ue; Scandinavian å ø, ao oe.” [Current wording: “When example ü ue (not æ œ, see below); é, n; ø oe œ); ao.”] In case rigorous rewrite acceptable, explicit, lessening need interpretation. establish once validly published, actual (adding letter) limited just five cases. last deals adopted medieval Latin. Therefore concerns “ligatures meaning fits seamlessly 60.4, Latin”. By contrast, nothing common signs, otherwise topic 60.7. worth considering clarifying addition “æ œ” “(first Latin)”. “Ex. n. letter ao. ‘Forsskålea’ (dedicated Peter Forsskål) cited Forsskaolea L. (Opobalsamum: 17. 1764), ‘Forskohlea’, done Linnaeus (Mant. Pl.: 72. 1767), ‘Forskalea’, Jussieu (Gen. 403. 1789).” classic case, reason å-to-become-ao included Code. “60(new). forming epithets personal, geographical, vernacular words, (such ligatures) do belong twenty-six modern Latin alphabet (Art. 32.1(b)), suppress transcribe conformity nomenclatural usage (see 60.7).” adjusted proposed, well offer guidance deal ligatures, etc. occur languages. better prevent misformed rather than them afterwards (by 60.7). now phrased, Rec. 60E goes towards this, explicitly mention epithets. historical accident; proposing Cambridge Congress 1930, Valckenier Suringar (Prop. Nomencl.: 3–6. 1929) intended B IVc) VIIIbis); proposed parallel Recommendation rejected because its supporting Examples, content (Briquet, Syn. Cambridge: 20, 23. 1930; Avis Préal. 9, 10. 1930).