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

[ 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

I'm not "muddling things up", you are by disputing obvious facts. I
simply said the ICBN lists Ioxylon as a "nomina rejicienda" but you
disagreed and said Ioxylon is not a rejected name. It is easy for
someone to determine which is correct. They can check the ICBN webpage
that designates Ioxylon as a "nomina rejicienda":
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/no...ANGEs00302.htm

--------------
You stated,

"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."


What exactly are you speculating about here? Be specific and give
species names, not just the authorities. Under what rules of the ICBN
would what you propose be allowed?

Rafinesque lost priority for Toxylon to Nuttall's Maclura which is not
easily reversed. If new research reveals Maclura pomifera does not
belong in the same genus as other Maclura species, then those species
will have to be moved to a different genus. If Maclura pomifera is
ever revealed to belong in a genus established before Maclura, then it
would be moved into that genus. There seems to be no way that Toxylon
will ever be used as a current genus for a plant species unless the
ICBN reverses its ruling and gives Rafinesque's Toxylon priority over
Nuttall's Maclura. That seems unlikely.

Do you know the specific reasons why the ICBN picked Maclura over
Toxylon? The typo of Ioxylon for Toxylon doesn't seem a sufficient
reason. I looked up Rafinesque's 1817 description for Toxylon
pomiferum, and it is not clear that he actually ever saw Osage orange.
In fact he mentioned that he learned of the species from other
botanists including Nuttall, who was perhaps the first botanist to
collect it in the wild because Lewis and Clark found Osage orange in
cultivation. Rafinesque compared Osage orange fruit to breadfruit and
incorrectly claimed the osage orange fruit was "very good to eat."
Even his name Toxylon is misapplied because he said it is Greek for
"arrow wood" but Osage orange was well-known for it use as bow wood,
which Meriwether Lewis even noted in his 1804 letter to President
Jefferson.

Part of the reason why Rafinesque lost priority might have been his
poor reputation as a botanist. Rafinesque was amazingly productive
with over 2,700 generic names and 6,400 species names to his credit
but very few of those names are in use today, including only about 30
of his genera: http://www2.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/rafin.html Even
his admirers admit he emphasized quantity over quality in his
botanical publications. Many of his botanical contemporaries
considered that he was insane and ignored his work. His 1819
publication that gave the correct spelling of Toxylon first gave
another incorrect spelling, Xoxylon. The 1819 publication was a long,
harsh review of Nuttall's Genera of North American Plants in which
Rafinesque lambasted Nuttall and numerous other botanists for not
using his plant names.

----------

You took my statement, "The ICBN is clear.", out of context. I was
just talking about ICBN labeling Ioxylon as "nomina rejicienda." The
ICBN is not always crystal clear on some matters.

---------

You said that "The proposal [to conserve Maclura versus Toxylon] was
submitted to the 1930 Congress
(more than a century later! As I reckon it this is a substantial
amount of time)."

You are greatly exaggerating the amount of time involved. Agreement on
an international code of botanical nomenclature was not reached until
1930 at the Botanical Congress in Cambridge, England. So if your 1930
date is correct, the Maclura versus Toxylon question was submitted
immediately upon reaching consensus on a truly international code.
Famous taxonomist, Arthur Cronquist's text, Introductory Botany 2nd
edition, notes that the earliest attempt for international rules
governing botanical nomenclature was not until 1867 in Paris but
botanists from Kew, Berlin and the United States did not accept the
Paris code and each developed their own codes. That first attempt was
fifty years after Rafinesque's publication on Ioxylon.

It probably would have been politically unwise for a pre-1930
Botanical Congress to have considered disputed American species, such
as Maclura versus Toxylon, prior to reaching a compromise with the
adherants of the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Britton
helped write the American Code, and he used Toxylon over Maclura in
his 1913 Flora of the Northern United States... which had Brown as
coauthor.

Even before 1930, Maclura was being conserved under the international
code by at least some botanists in the United States. In the 1922
edition of the Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, Liberty Hyde
Bailey said of Maclura pomifera, "It is sometimes described under
Toxylon, but this name is replaced with Maclura by the 'nomina
conservanda' rule of the international rules." Asa Gray's New Manual
of Botany 8th edition of 1908 adopted the 1905 Vienna code and also
used Maclura pomifera. The Maclura/Toxylon priority dispute seems to
have been settled in 1906 by Schneider who published Maclura pomifera
(Raf.) C. K. Schneid. Rafinesque got his specific epithet and a
listing as a coauthority. Nuttall got his genus name, and Schneider
attached his own name as a coauthority for settling the matter. Do you
know what reason(s) Schneider used to give priority to Maclura?

---------
In response to my statement that "Toxylon is the validly published
name." you replied,

"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."

You took the statement out of context again. What I was saying was
Toxylon, not Ioxylon, is the validly published name. Are you agreeing
with that or saying Toxylon should have priority over Maclura?

---------

In response to my statement that "Ioxylon is only used in the case of
a full citation." you replied,

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

The ICBN agrees with my statement, "61.4. The orthographical variants
of a name are 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.
Note 1. In full citations it is desirable that the original form of a
corrected orthographical variant of a name be added (Rec. 50F)."

Why is my statement inconsistent with ICBN? It says to correct an
orthographical variant [e.g. Ioxylon] to the validly published form
[e.g. Toxylon]. Note 1 is worded rather poorly but in this case
Ioxylon would be both the "original form" and the "orthographical
variant" whereas Toxylon is the "corrected ...name."

------------

In response to my statement, "It should be labeled "pro syn." when
used in the full citation. (ICBN Chapt. 4(4): 50A)." you replied:

"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"

Regardless of the rule, Ioxylon pomiferum and Toxylon pomiferum are
still listed as synonyms for Maclura pomifera even by botanists at the
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, which holds many of the
botanical specimens collected by Lewis and Clark, including osage
orange: http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/L&C/L...6.html#Maclura

---------

A lot of common names arose as "stupid" errors, including bodark and
its variants. In a list of all the common names for Tabebuia
avellanadae = T. ipe, iapacho could logically be included along with
lapacho even if it is only a misspelling.

--------

One doesn't need a refresher course in French because bois d'arc was
adopted into English. Bois d'arc is listed in the main section of the
1973 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and the pronunciation is
bo-dark with a long o for bo. The pronunciation of the second syllable
is the same as the word "dark." You can hear the pronunciation of bois
d'arc he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=d'arc
It is very likely that most people were correctly pronouncing bois
d'arc, and someone heard it pronounced correctly but misspelled it as
bodark in print and created a degenerate common name.

--------

Even if "strawberry" and "wheat" are "universally agreed upon English
common names," they are not internationally used in other languages so
are less useful than scientific names. There are more than one
cultivated species of both wheat and strawberry so at best they would
be English common names at a generic level, not at a species level. I
have a Japanese-language book on variegated plants which has Latin
names including "Fragaria ananassa", but "strawberry" does not appear
so an international English common name is of no value in non-English
literature.

--------

Your claim that "ipe" is an international common name more precise
than a scientific name is illogical. Ipe is applied to wood of any of
several Tabebuia spp. and is one of several common names for such
wood: http://trimscrew.com/IPE.htm
http://www.austinwholesaledecking.co...nical_info.htm

Therefore, wood labeled "ipe" is not as precise as wood correctly
labeled with a single species, such as Tabebuia avellanadae = T. ipe.

Your defense that Tabebuia avellanadae is not a "current" name is not
logical because even if Tabebuia avellanadae is not the "current"
name, it is a synonym, which can be easily linked to the "current"
name. The "current" name for a particular species is often unclear
because taxonomists sometimes disagree on the "current" name for a
particular species. Fortunately, if you have one synonym for a
species, you can readily find all the other synonyms for that species.

Your defense that it "will likely be impossible" to determine which
species of Tabebuia the log represents is not logical. The species
would have been determined before the tree was cut down otherwise it
would not have been labeled T. avellanadae in the first place.


David R. Hershey




"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
[ 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