It was not a sense of humor but a fact that anyone can coin a commom
name for a plant, even by accident. There are millions of plant common
names and often dozens or hundreds for a single species. If a common
name is used, even on websites or in conversation, then it becomes a
common name by default. Plant catalogs often coin new common names for
plants with well-known common names. Even botanists have long felt
obliged to coin, often silly, common names for plant species that
apparently have none:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

I said that even if iapacho originated as a typo, it would still be a
valid common name because it is in use. Do you know for a fact that
iapacho arose due to a typo, or does it represent an alternate
spelling or a native term?

You seem to be claiming there are "plenty" of rules for common plant
names. There may be "rules" such as books on preferred or standardized
common names that often contradict each other, but few follow them
resulting in chaos: http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

Just because Tabebuia ipe is not the latest scientific name doesn't
mean that it is not useful. There might be more published information
under Tabebuia ipe than under the more recent Tabebuia avellanedae.
When searching for information it is often more desirable to use a
longstanding, but recently obsolete, scientific name because it turns
up both old and new literature, including new names. With a new
scientific name, you only turn up more recent literature. The best
way to search is to use all synonyms.

Even you don't always use the most recent scientific names, witness
Linaria cymbalaria, but I don't think having the most recent
scientific name is that big a deal. In Hortus Third, I quickly found
that Linaria cymbalaria was a synonym for Cymbalaria muralis.
Taxonomists often change names for trivial reasons because they are
expected to "publish or perish." The binomial system is being used at
cross purposes for both naming and classification. Plant names should
be stable to avoid confusion but classification is always changing.

What science has to do with your vague criticisms of a webpage is that
scientists are supposed to be specific. It is not known if the
additional mistake(s) you claim are substantial or trivial.

You are the one who seems to have invented the
"Art-of-Filling-Up-Space-With-Senseless-Listings-of-Silly-Typos." You
claim Alex Wilson's webpage has other mistakes but won't say what they
are. If they are just "Silly-Typos", why bring them up in the first
place because, as you say, "The fact that websites often contain
errors is hardly new."


David R. Hershey


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef
No, the webpage is not really wrong on iapacho because it is used as a
common name. An internet search turns up several websites that use
iapacho:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...q=Iapacho+&btn
G=Google+Search

+ + +
I am afraid I do not understand your sense of humour. Do you really think it
is funny to suggest basing conclusions on a nose-count of websites?

The fact that websites often contain errors is hardly new. Sometimes they
even copy each other's errors.
+ + +

Lapacho is certainly a much more widely used common name but iapacho
is also used. Even if iapacho merely originated as a typo that used an
uppercase i for a lowercase L, it is still a common name because it is
in use. There are no accepted rules governing common names.

+ + +
Yes there are, and plenty of them. There is also something called "common
sense": quite a few of those websites use "Iapacho" and "lapacho" next to
one another, interchangeably. One of the others is riddled with typos.
+ + +

A person doing an internet search for iapacho will find it associated with
the scientific name Tabebuia ipe.

+ + +
Well such a person had better know to be critical as to what is found on
websites. By the way, Tabebuia ipe does not seem to be a current name.
+ + +

What other mistakes do you claim the webpage made? It is really unfair
and unscientific to issue a vague charge that a webpage contains
errors and then not list them.

+ + +
What has science got to do with it?
Perhaps you mean an artform, like the
Art-of-Filling-Up-Space-With-Senseless-Listings-of-Silly-Typos?
+ + +

The webpage cited on Naturally Rot-Resistant Woods was written for a
nonscientific audience so it cannot be held to a particularly high standard.
The author, Alex Wilson, seems to have some professional qualifications as
editor and publisher of the newsletter, Environmental Building News.

http://www.garden.org/articles/scrip...les.taf?id=977

David R. Hershey

+ + +
Surely that does not mean he cannot make silly mistakes
PvR

=======================
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote

- for the record: it is "lapacho" not "iapacho" (web site is wrong, not
David Hershey: this is not their only mistake either). The lapacho group is
one of several groups of woods yielded by the genus Tabebuia.

- also: as noted above: Ocotea rodi(a)ei has been Chlorocardium rodiei since
1991
PvR