I don't mean simply books of common plant names. I know those exist. I
mean an article or book that would trace the origin of most (since you
object to "all") of the common names for a particular plant species. I
would be surprised if that had been done because it would be a
tremendous undertaking to search through the large literature even for
a species such as Maclura pomifera that entered the botany and
gardening literature fairly recently compared to many species. You
admit you have no definite knowledge that such a work exists so your
guess is as good as mine.

My point is that you have been arguing that there are rules for common
names although you never could produce any other than common sense.
You have been arguing that common names have to originate in spoken
language and not first appear in print, i.e. "Common names usually are
written down not at all or only at a very late stage." However, the
dictionary definition of "vernacular" does not have any such
requirement. There are no rules for common names, and numerous common
names first appeared in print. Some of those published common names
then became widely used in spoken language.

You said "This must be a candidate for the award to the worst
misrepresentation ever? Or should it be entered in the race for
muddled thinking?" I nominate what you stated on Oct. 30:

"No, both Ioxylon pomiferum and Maclura aurantiaca still are a "valid
name"" and "Ioxylon was not rejected. However it was a printer's
error, technically an "orthographical variant", hence the correction.
Ioxylon and Toxylon are the same name, with opinions differing on how
it should be written."

Appendix IIIA of the ICBN says Ioxylon is "nomina rejicienda" :
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/no...e/APP3AE_3.HTM

The ICBN is clear. Apparently the only "differing opinions" are yours
and the printer who made the original error. The original author
corrected it. Toxylon is the validly published name. As an
orthographical variant, Ioxylon is "to be corrected to the validly
published form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print,
it is to be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form."
(ICBN Chapt.7(1): 61.4). Ioxylon is only used in the case of a full
citation. "In full citations it is desirable that the original form of
a corrected orthographical variant of a name be added " (ICBN Chapt.
7(1): 61.4, Note 1). It should be labeled "pro syn." when used in the
full citation. (ICBN Chapt. 4(4): 50A).

It seemed like a comparable situation, you insist iapacho is merely a
misspelling of lapacho, and Ioxylon was clearly a misspelling of
Toxylon. Even the rigorous rules of the ICBN memorialize spelling
errors and suggest they be included in a full citation of the species.
For the no-rules field of plant common names, iapacho easily qualifies
as a common name.

I still don't see your "logical" reason for why bois d'arc degenerated
into bodark. Bodark can be pronounced the same as bois d'arc. Thus, by
your argument that true common names only originate in spoken
language, bodark would not be a common name because when spoken it
sounded like bois d'arc. Thus, it seems that bodark first originated
in print.

You never claimed ipe was an internationally accepted name for a
particular plant species but for a type of wood from several Tabebuia
spp. Therefore, it does not disprove my statement that plant common
names lack international uniformity. I was talking about plant common
names, not wood common names.

You idea that ipe is a "good example of a [wood] common name that is
more valuable and precise than a botanical name" is obviously wrong
because it refers to wood from any of several species of Tabebuia.
Labeling a log ipe is less precise than labeling it Tabebuia
avellanedae.


David R. Hershey






"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef

You misinterpreted what I said.

+ + +
Unfortunately no
+ + +

I know of no articles that have traced
the origin of common names for a particular plant species, do you?

+ + +
I know that in Dutch there is a tradition of over a hundred years in just
that. Since the British are almost as dictionary-happy as the Dutch I would
be quite surprised if there is not a sizable bookcase full of such works for
English common names. For my part I am glad enough to steer clear of such
books so I would not know where you are to look for them
+ + +

The
most I have seen are just lists of common names with no attempt to
roughly determine the time or region of origin or the first instance
of publication.

+ + +
If you are interested these books will likely come out of the woodwork
quickly
+ + +

When common names are coined by an author, as is often the case, then
the exact date and originator can be determined. Many people often
have no idea what a particular plant should be called so they look it
up in a gardening, horticulture or botany book and find the common
name, even if it was a common name first coined by the author. There
is nothing in the definition of common or vernacular name that says
that it has to be unpublished or be originated by nonscientists. The
Webster's dictionary definition of vernacular is "applied to a plant
or animal in the common native speech as distinguished from the Latin
nomenclature of scientific classification." The definition does not
disallow anyone from making up a common name for a plant.

+ + +
Your point?
+ + +

You said "common names like 'bodark' are used intentionally, while
'iapacho' is used only when an editor relies on OCR or on careless
typing." That is not necessarily true.

+ + +
Pie in the sky
+ + +

Someone who sees iapacho in print, may intentionally use it again.

+ + +
Vandals are everywhere
+ + +

Who's to say bodark didn't
originate from careless typing or a misspelling with a quill pen?

+ + +
Anybody who ever thought about language?
+ + +

You did use the word "logical." You said bois d'arc "'degenerated' for
a logical reason" into bodark.

+ + +
I said: Compared to [quote]: "Common name ... may be a degenerate form of
another word, as markery is of mercury." a reference to a plant that made a
recent appearance in this list looks "more appropriate" to me. Aso it is a
nice clean derivation, which was 'degenerated' for a logical reason

Seems self-explanatory to me
+ + +

You argument that "careless typing" cannot result in a new common name in
the case of iapacho, for lapacho, is not consistent with your view that
Ioxylon, originating as a printer's error of Toxylon, is allowed as an
"orthographical variant".

+ + +
This must be a candidate for the award to the worst misrepresentation ever?
Or should it be entered in the race for muddled thinking?

Obviously there is no point in going over this again, but I must state
(again?) that although an 'orthographic variant' may exist this does not
mean it is 'allowed': it is "to be corrected" (61.4)
+ + +

Even if Ipe is an internationally accepted name for a particular kind
of wood, that really has nothing to do with this discussion of whether
iapacho is a common name.

David R. Hershey

+ + +
You said "Unlike scientific names, common names lack international
uniformity ..."

Therefore ipe is a good example that this statement is inaccurate, and in
the sweeping sense you use it, incorrect. It also is a good example of a
common name that is more valuable and precise than a botanical name
PvR