[ snip ]

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."

+ + +
Eminently correct, but perhaps not easily readable to one not familiar with
plant names
+ + +

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

+ + +
Wrong.
You do have a talent for muddling things up.
You are mixing up two separate issues
1) Ioxylon versus Toxylon. These (Ioxylon and Toxylon) are the same name,
with opinions differing on how it should be written, technically
"orthographical variants". An issue of 1817-1819
2) Ioxylon and Toxylon versus Maclura. The genus Maclura has been conserved
versus Ioxylon/Toxylon. The proposal was submitted to the 1930 Congress
(more than a century later! As I reckon it this is a substantial amount of
time). This conserved status of Maclura means that, in a universe where only
Ioxylon/Toxylon and Maclura exist, Ioxylon/Toxylon is a rejected name.
Outside that two-name universe Ioxylon/Toxylon remains a valid and
legitimate name.

If somebody decides that Rafinesque's species does not belong in the same
genus as Harms's species then it will be called Ioxylon/Toxylon, the name
that has priority. At such a time the issue of spelling will become
interesting again.
+ + +

The ICBN is clear.

+ + +
As to whether the ICBN is always as clear as should be is an issue hotly
debated periodically. Anyway it must be read with some care.
Muddled thinking can lead to silly errors
+ + +

Apparently the only "differing opinions" are yours
and the printer who made the original error.

+ + +
Wrong
+ + +

The original author corrected it.

+ + +
Quite. However as the ICBN now stands this is not a consideration.
Not formally.
+ + +

Toxylon is the validly published name.

+ + +
Opinions differ, but actually this is the position I would take too.
However, other than you, I do recognize this is not a consensus point of
view. Probably not even a majority point of view.
+ + +

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).

+ + +
That is the reference I gave
+ + +

Ioxylon is only used in the case of a full citation.

+ + +
Maybe you should debate this with the editors of the ICBN and the ING, both
reference works disagree with you here
+ + +

"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).

+ + +
Correct, as far as it goes. See below.
+ + +

It should be labeled "pro syn." when used in the full citation. (ICBN
Chapt. 4(4): 50A).

+ + +
Wrong.
Synonyms mean that different names exist for the same thing.
Ioxylon/Toxylon are the same name (in different spellings) for the same
thing. Rec 50F.1 applies, not 50A.1

Actually you would have known this if you had not misquoted.
The full quotation is:
"Art 61 Note 1. In full citations it is desirable that the original form of
a corrected orthographical variant of a name be added (Rec 50F)."

+ + +

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.

+ + +
But not necessarily used, and only cited if they occurred in "the form as
originally published". Later typographical errors are just errors to be
corrected.
+ + +

For the no-rules field of plant common names, iapacho easily qualifies
as a common name.

+ + +
Wrong
This will only happen if a lot of somebodies take this up:
iapacho has not even begun to be more than a stupid and irritant error
+ + +

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.

+ + +
Maybe you should take a refresher course in French?
+ + +

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.

+ + +
Ah well here I was thinking that "strawberry" for Fragaria species and
"wheat" for some Triticum species were universally agreed upon English
common names. Apparently these are not universally agreed upon, but there is
a lone holdout.
+ + +

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.
David R. Hershey

Labeling a log ipe is less precise than labeling it Tabebuia
avellanedae.

+ + +
Wrong.
Labelling a log "ipe" is as precise as it gets. Labelling it Tabebuia
avellanadae can at best be equally precise, but is likely to be lot less
precise. I would not hesitate to call it downright misleading, unless two
criteria are met. 1) There must be pre-agreement that Tabebuia avellanadae
is a current name (not certain by a long way) and 2) it must be shown that
this log was yielded by a tree of that species. Especially the latter will
likely be impossible.

Maybe it is time you conceded you don't have a clue as to what you are
talking about?
PvR