Okay. :-) Your other post did not show up yet in my version of this
thread. I don't know if that's odd or not.

I recognized Kunth to be an ancient Taxonomist's name, but that's about as
far that line of thinking took me.

Mostly the stuff that follows the binomial confuses me, but I do know enough
to recognize that it is often a very important part of the binomial's
history and tells a person who can read it a lot of information. In fact,
isn't it true that a correctly written species name really contains at least
some of that publication history and often helps the reader understand just
what plant is being discussed? Something like: Zygopetalum maculatum, Garay
(1970) or such...

I also think, IMHO, that scientists (taxonomists if you will) are fighting
an uphill battle versus "horticulturally" accepted names when collectors and
the general public are concerned, even if these names are scientifically
incorrect. I am not sure where the AOS places itself in this battle. Are
they trying to be more scientific in their approach to species award names
or are they trying to communicate or educate their horticulrally oriented
subscribers. Perhaps the AOS is being sloppy in not sending an explanation,
or correctly written name with publication history to the award recipient
when they change names on the award's bill.

On the other hand serious collectors eventually have to come to terms with
these name issues.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Al wrote:
I wonder why Kew authorities have decided to accept a name published only
in
1970 over one published first in 1827. The acceptance of the oldest
published name is the rule and exception to it are generally explained
someplace to somebody in writing.
(snip)
Zygopetalum mackayi Hook., Bot. Mag. 54: t. 2748 (1827).
Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, Orquideologia 5: 189 (1970).

Hi Al,

See my previous response to Pat. I think the key is that the 1970 name
is Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, not Zygopetalum maculatum
Garay. Kunth apparently named the plant Dendrobium maculatum in 1816,
beating Zygopetalum mackayi by 11 years. Back then, most epiphytic
orchids were shoehorned into a few genera, so it is the "maculatum"
epithet that is significant not the odd use of "Dendrobium." IIRC,
species epithets are usually conserved when a species is moved to a new
genus, so "maculatum" is the oldest published species epithet in this
case.

Presumably, Garay pointed out that "maculatum" is the oldest name for
the plant in question and to explicitly linked it to Zygopetalum.

Nick