I have a couple of questions I was hoping someone
could help with....

Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896

What is the difference between the two? I assume
var. stands for variety, but what does fo. stand
for? Form? Is this a case where the same plant was
reclassified a few years after discovery, or are
they two separate plants?

Thank you for your help,

-N

In message , Nightingale
writes
I have a couple of questions I was hoping someone could help with....

Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896

What is the difference between the two? I assume var. stands for
variety, but what does fo. stand for? Form? Is this a case where the
same plant was reclassified a few years after discovery, or are they
two separate plants?

Thank you for your help,

-N
They're almost certainly the same plant. The presence of the name André
in the second name means that it's plant originally named by André but
reclassified in a different higher taxon, or in this case, at a
different rank.

I don't recall seeing fo. as an abbreviation before (f. is more usual),
but I assume that it represents form/a.

The other possibility is that André described Tillandsia usneoides fo.
longissima and Tillandsia otherspecies infra longissima (infra standing
for any infraspecific rank), and Mez transferred the latter into
usneoides. I don't understand the minutiae of the ICBN sufficiently, but
I suspect that would have been an error.

To complicate the issue, IPNI has it as T. u. var. longissima André.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Nightingale" schreef in
I have a couple of questions I was hoping someone
could help with....

Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896

What is the difference between the two? I assume
var. stands for variety, but what does fo. stand
for? Form? Is this a case where the same plant was
reclassified a few years after discovery, or are
they two separate plants?

Thank you for your help,

***
By the look of it, the difference is one of rank only
- "fo." stands for "forma" (preferred abbreviation "f.")
- "var." stands for "varietas"
Ranks may be given in Latin or the language of the publication (varietas is
the Latin, variety is the English) .

Almost surely, both plants will have the same type, and apply to basically
the same group of plants. As is true for any botanical name, the exact group
of plants a name applies to will depend on the taxonomist publishing: it is
not constant, but subject to taxonomic revision. For a well-known example of
this principle: the family name Malvaceae as used a decade ago applied to a
much smaller family than when it is used by the current APG-system (see
http://www.malvaceae.info)

A likely scenario in this case is that Mez decided this plant was different
in only minor aspects from other plants of this species (perhaps it was only
found in the wild in only one spot) and reduced it in rank to that of forma
(English "form").

[This is not 100% guaranteed. Theoretically these might be completely
different plants, and only a careful check of the literature will assure
you. In this case the point is rather academic as Tillandsia usneoides is
quite distinct and such a wild scenario is quite unlikely.]
PvR

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
"Nightingale" schreef in

I have a couple of questions I was hoping someone
could help with....


Given the following two names:


Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896


What is the difference between the two? I assume
var. stands for variety, but what does fo. stand
for? Form? Is this a case where the same plant was
reclassified a few years after discovery, or are
they two separate plants?

Thank you for your help,


***
By the look of it, the difference is one of rank only
- "fo." stands for "forma" (preferred abbreviation "f.")
- "var." stands for "varietas"
Ranks may be given in Latin or the language of the publication (varietas is
the Latin, variety is the English) .

Almost surely, both plants will have the same type, and apply to basically
the same group of plants. As is true for any botanical name, the exact group
of plants a name applies to will depend on the taxonomist publishing: it is
not constant, but subject to taxonomic revision. For a well-known example of
this principle: the family name Malvaceae as used a decade ago applied to a
much smaller family than when it is used by the current APG-system (see
http://www.malvaceae.info)

A likely scenario in this case is that Mez decided this plant was different
in only minor aspects from other plants of this species (perhaps it was only
found in the wild in only one spot) and reduced it in rank to that of forma
(English "form").

[This is not 100% guaranteed. Theoretically these might be completely
different plants, and only a careful check of the literature will assure
you. In this case the point is rather academic as Tillandsia usneoides is
quite distinct and such a wild scenario is quite unlikely.]
PvR


Thank you both for the replies. It helps to clear
up some of the questions I have.

-N

writes:
Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896

I suspect that neither of these is correct, see below.

To complicate the issue, IPNI has it as T. u. var. longissima André.
-- Stewart Robert Hinsley


Oh dear, it sounds as if there might be an error in IPNI that should be
checked into and reported. We need to look at the actual text for the Mez
name, to see if he transferred a forma to a var.

According to IPNI, there was a Tillandsia name accredited to Mez (T. u. forma
cretacea) on page 615 in volume 3 part 3 of Flora Brasiliensis by Carl (Karl)
Friedrich Philipp von Martius, which was published 1840-1906, in 15 volumes.
So that gives a place to start looking for other Tillandsia usneoides names.
Amazingly, that book is available online in Gallica (http://gallica.bnf.fr/).

Firstly, the other Mez name makes it clear that the author of this section of
the book is Mez, so this is probably the only place that a longissima name
with that author would have been published. The longissima name is there, but
it is clear from the way it is formatted that the intention was just to cite
a previously published name of a forma, so IPNI and Martius disagree about
whether André published a var. or a forma.

It will therefore be necessary to look at the earlier publication to see if
it was a forma, in which case IPNI should be corrected. The name is listed as
appearing on page 64 of the publication "Bromeliaceae Andreanae", which is a
book by Edouard-Francois André, published 1889. I can't check this further
because I don't have access to a library just now that has that book.

I suspect that this confusion might have come about because André didn't
specify the rank of his infraspecific taxa, as many authors around that time
or earlier did not. Thus, article 35.4 might apply "35.4. If in one whole
publication ..., prior to 1 January 1890, only one infraspecific rank is
admitted, it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be
contrary to the author's statements in the same publication." Thus the
editors of IPNI would have translated his names to varieties. IPNI probably
should have another entry added "Tillandsia usneoides f. longissima Mez,
1896" (André's name does not appear because the rank has changed.)

By the way, I¹ve learned from corresponding with the editors of IPNI that
their policy is to not list formae within vars, so if someone published
³Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima², for example, it would
appear in IPNI as ³Tillandsia usneoides f. longissima². It is possible that
André published forma longissima within a higher infraspecific taxon.

Nadia Talent

--------------------------------------------------
Nadia Talent
Department of Botany, University of Toronto,
25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, M5S 3B2, Canada
Fax +1 416-978-5878
Also: Department of Natural History
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park West, Toronto, M5S 2C6

writes:
Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889
Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896

"Nadia talent" schreef in
I suspect that neither of these is correct, see below.

***
You have been doing quite a bit of work! Unfortunately, it appears to have
been mostly wasted?

ICBN Art 35.4. If in one whole publication (Art 35.5), prior to 1 January
1890, only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that
of variety unless this would be contrary to the author's statements in the
same publication."

presumably does not apply as Mez (in the Flora Brasiliensis) indicates that
André published this name in the rank of forma. If this is correct then we
have an "author's statement" and there is no need to involve Art 35.4.

As you note the GCI and Mez disagree about the rank used by André, but in
the absence of evidence to the contrary I will assume that the CGI is in
error (this is a fairly safe assumption as indexes are notorious for the
amount of error they contain). This is supported by TROPICOS which states
that Mez did transfer the name from the rank of forma to that of varietas
(upgrading this plant in rank), although not in the Flora Brasiliensis but
in the Monographiae Phanerogamarum

As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database, which means they
are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than three
parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a name,
but a classification).

But please do not let me discourage you!
PvR

On 14 Mar 2006, at 07:36,*"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
writes:
Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889

I still believe (see below) that this probably needs to be corrected to
var. longissima André, only a check of the publication can confirm.

Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896
I still believe (see below) that this is probably a later homonym.

"Nadia talent" schreef in
I suspect that neither of these is correct, see below.

***
You have been doing quite a bit of work! Unfortunately, it appears to have
been mostly wasted?

ICBN Art 35.4. If in one whole publication (Art 35.5), prior to 1 January
1890, only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that
of variety unless this would be contrary to the author's statements in the
same publication."

presumably does not apply as Mez* (in the Flora Brasiliensis) indicates that
André published this name in the rank of forma. If this is correct then we
have an "author's statement" and there is no need to involve Art 35.4.


I disagree. The publication in question is André's. However, it would be advisable
to check André's publication to make sure that he did not use varieties also, or
state that he considered the formas to be subsidiary to some other infraspecific
rank used by other authors.

As you note the GCI and Mez disagree about the rank used by André, but in
the absence of evidence to the contrary I will assume that the CGI is in
error (this is a fairly safe assumption as indexes are notorious for the
amount of error they contain). This is supported by TROPICOS which states
that Mez did transfer the name from the rank of forma to that of varietas
(upgrading this plant in rank), although not in the Flora Brasiliensis but
in the Monographiae Phanerogamarum


Interesting! I had not realized that TROPICOS and IPNI are not synchronized.

Monographiae Phanerogamum is unfortunately not in Gallica or any other online
database that I know of.

So IPNI appears to need just the one record to be added (but the original documents
need to be checked, as always):

"Tillandsia usneoides f. longissima Mez Fl. Bras. (Martius) 3, pt. 3: 615. 1894."

There would be no need to add:

"Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima Mez Monogr. Phan. 9: 883. 1896." because
it is just a later homonym of André's var. (but it would be nice if IPNI listed all
homonyms and clearly labelled them as such, as well as all corrections that have
been made including those that were made long ago in the GCI and IK).

TROPICOS apparently needs to have the formae listed from André changed to vars.
to keep it up to date with the Codes of Nomenclature.

As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database, which means they
are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than three
parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a name,
but a classification).

But please do not let me discourage you!
PvR


I fear that we are discouraging others from attempting to resolve nomenclatural
problems. They aren't always this difficult, but it is necessary to accumulate all
the old literature, and it can take years to accomplish that for a large group of
plants. I strongly believe that we all have a responsibility to submit corrections
to the database editors as we discover them while delving into that old literature.
It helps, of course, if one doesn't work on too many plants at once.

Nadia Talent

--------------------------------------------------
Nadia Talent
Department of Botany, University of Toronto,
25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, M5S 3B2, Canada
Fax +1 416-978-5878
Also: Department of Natural History,
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park West, Toronto, M5S 2C6

"Nadia talent" schreef
I still believe (see below) that this probably needs to be corrected to
var. longissima André, only a check of the publication can confirm.

***
I disagree about the "probable". It would not hurt to check the original
publication by André (there is a 1983 translation available), but this is
presumably superfluous. If you don't want to believe Mez (I do) then it is
would be easiest to check a recent monograph on Tillandsia.
* * *

Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896
I still believe (see below) that this is probably a later homonym.

ICBN Art 35.4. If in one whole publication (Art 35.5), prior to 1
January 1890, only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to
be that of variety unless this would be contrary to the author's statements
in the same publication."

presumably does not apply as Mez (in the Flora Brasiliensis) indicates
that André published this name in the rank of forma. If this is correct then
we have an "author's statement" and there is no need to involve Art 35.4.

I disagree. The publication in question is André's.

***
The relevant publication is André's, but I see no reason to disbelieve Mez
when he reports on what is there. Authors like him were painstakingly
accurate in such minutiae. Besides, TROPICOS agrees with Mez.
* * *

However, it would be advisable
to check André's publication to make sure that he did not use varieties
also, or state that he considered the formas to be subsidiary to some other
infraspecific rank used by other authors.

***
I am sorry, but that is not relevant. Art 35.4 is designed for those cases
where the author does not indicate which rank he is using (as in the
/Species plantarum/, where infraspecific taxa are marked by Greek letters
alpha, beta, gamma: these names are taken to be varieties). If André did
indicate that he regarded this as a forma, that is the end of it: thereby it
is a forma. It does not matter if he used varietes as well or not.
* * *

As you note, the GCI and Mez disagree about the rank used by André, but
in the absence of evidence to the contrary I will assume that the CGI is in
error (this is a fairly safe assumption as indexes are notorious for the
amount of error they contain). This is supported by TROPICOS which states
that Mez did transfer the name from the rank of forma to that of varietas
(upgrading this plant in rank), although not in the Flora Brasiliensis but
in the Monographiae Phanerogamarum

Interesting! I had not realized that TROPICOS and IPNI are not
synchronized.

***
TROPICOS and IPNI have very little in common. Their basic nature is entirely
different (do see the FAQ of this NG). IPNI is a compilation of three
different nomenclatural indexes: it just registers what names were
published. IPNI is full of errors (don't get me started). TROPICOS is run by
the Missouri Botanical Garden and is a taxonomic database so it contains
flora's and monographs (hard taxonomic data). There are some errors in
TROPICOS, but you really need to know what you are doing to find them.
* * *

Monographiae Phanerogamum is unfortunately not in Gallica or any other
online database that I know of.

So IPNI appears to need just the one record to be added (but the original
documents need to be checked, as always):

"Tillandsia usneoides f. longissima Mez Fl. Bras. (Martius) 3, pt. 3: 615.
1894."

***
Possible but not very likely. See above.
* * *

There would be no need to add:

"Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima Mez Monogr. Phan. 9: 883. 1896."
because it is just a later homonym of André's var. (but it would be nice if
IPNI listed all homonyms and clearly labelled them as such, as well as all
corrections that have been made including those that were made long ago in
the GCI and IK).

TROPICOS apparently needs to have the formae listed from André changed to
vars. to keep it up to date with the Codes of Nomenclature.

As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database, which means
they are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than
three parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a
name, but a classification).

But please do not let me discourage you!
PvR

I fear that we are discouraging others from attempting to resolve
nomenclatural problems. They aren't always this difficult, but it is
necessary to accumulate all the old literature, and it can take years to
accomplish that for a large group of plants. I strongly believe that we all
have a responsibility to submit corrections to the database editors as we
discover them while delving into that old literature. It helps, of course,
if one doesn't work on too many plants at once.

***
As nomenclatural problems go this is straightforward. As to
correcting the databases, actually it does help to deal with a lot of
literature, this will increase familarity with such issues, which will help
in knowing what to report and how. The editors in IPNI most likely will go
back to the original literature themselves (so as to avoid introducing new
errors), and it helps to indicate the potential problems as accurately as
possible.
PvR

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:14:45 -0700, P van Rijckevorsel wrote
(in article ):
ICBN Art 35.4. If in one whole publication (Art 35.5), prior to 1 January
1890, only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that
of variety unless this would be contrary to the author's statements in the
same publication."

I am sorry, but that is not relevant. Art 35.4 is designed for those cases
where the author does not indicate which rank he is using (as in the
/Species plantarum/, where infraspecific taxa are marked by Greek letters
alpha, beta, gamma: these names are taken to be varieties). If André did
indicate that he regarded this as a forma, that is the end of it: thereby it
is a forma. It does not matter if he used varietes as well or not.
* * *

I see the problem. Indeed your interpretation seems reasonable, but it is
not what the article says, as it is worded. I will post this on Taxacom,
and perhaps that way someone will point me to a published statement about
interpretation, or at least the ambiguity will be brought to the attention
of the editorial committee of the code.

Nadia Talent

--------------------------------------------------
Nadia Talent
Department of Botany, University of Toronto,
25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, M5S 3B2, Canada
Fax +1 416-978-5878
Also: Department of Natural History,
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park West, Toronto, M5S 2C6

You said "As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database,
which means they
are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than
three
parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a
name,
but a classification)."

I've never heard that a botanical name can have no more than 3 parts --
where did you find that information? I don't *think* it's in the code
that way.

IPNI designed their database so that no name would have more than 3
parts. Personally, I don't see how a 4-part name is "A Classification"
and a 3-part name isn't.

Susan, new to the group (well, I was here before google took them over)
PhD student in Botany

Susan" schreef
I've never heard that a botanical name can have no more than 3 parts --
where did you find that information? I don't *think* it's in the code
that way.

IPNI designed their database so that no name would have more than 3
parts. Personally, I don't see how a 4-part name is "A Classification"
and a 3-part name isn't.

Susan, new to the group (well, I was here before google took them over)
PhD student in Botany

***
This question is easy. See Art 24.1 and its Ex 1 !
PvR

"Nadia talent" schreef in
I see the problem. Indeed your interpretation seems reasonable, but it is
not what the article says, as it is worded. I will post this on Taxacom,
and perhaps that way someone will point me to a published statement about
interpretation, or at least the ambiguity will be brought to the attention
of the editorial committee of the code.

Nadia Talent

***
Well, the wording in the ICBN is often such that some background reading is
necessary. In this case the wording is fairly straightforward, but it does
help to have seen some of the older literature. For example if you had seen
some of Linnaeus Species Plantarum (available at gallica) you would have
aware how he recognises a rank below that of species, marked only by a Greek
letter.

Do keep in mind that we have 250 years of nomenclature, covered by only a
hundred years of Code (and only fifty years of ICBN proper). This is quite
a paradox! Wording in the ICBN is like a house of cards, when it comes to
making changes.

PvR

It doesn't say that a name can *only* have three parts, though. To my
way of thinking -- and looking at our heirarchical structure of names
-- any name is a classification, not just one that has more than 3
parts. In the case of Example 1, you're giving it's *full*
classification to subforma, not just an abbreviated version.

But who am I to argue with the code! :-)

Susan

Susan wrote:
You said "As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database,
which means they
are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than
three
parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a
name,
but a classification)."

I've never heard that a botanical name can have no more than 3 parts --
where did you find that information? I don't *think* it's in the code
that way.

IPNI designed their database so that no name would have more than 3
parts. Personally, I don't see how a 4-part name is "A Classification"
and a 3-part name isn't.

Susan, new to the group (well, I was here before google took them over)
PhD student in Botany

Forgive an ignorant philosopher, but a name is not a classification. It
denotes a taxon, perhaps, which is the outcome of classification, but the
classification lies in relating taxa, not in the act of naming.

A small nit, but I had to pick it.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?

"Susan" schreef
It doesn't say that a name can *only* have three parts, though. To my
way of thinking -- and looking at our heirarchical structure of names
-- any name is a classification, not just one that has more than 3
parts. In the case of Example 1, you're giving it's *full*
classification to subforma, not just an abbreviated version.

But who am I to argue with the code! :-)

Susan

***
Yes, the Code does say that (Art 32.1.b.): A name that does not conform to
Art 24.1 cannot be validly published and does not exist (as a formal name).

BTW, I made a quick browse through your website and it has some deadlinks,
some of the sites you linked to have moved.
PvR