For the "blue" passiflora, the french write the epitet as COERULEA , the english CAERULEA,
Both schools cite L. [1753, Sp. Pl. : 959], I have no way to check Sp. Pl. a comment will be appreciated.

Best wishes

In article , Jose Matas (Mallorca - Spain)
writes
For the "blue" *passiflora, the french write the epitet
as*COERULEA*, the english CAERULEA,
Both schools cite L. [1753, Sp. Pl. : 959],**I have no way to*check
Sp. Pl.* a comment will be appreciated.
*
Best wishes**
*

You can find a fascimile of Species Plantarum on Gallica, at

http://gallica.bnf.fr

IPNI, at

http://www.ipni.org

has Passiflora caerulea L., and, citing Index Kewensis, Passiflora
coerulea Auct. (that is various authors) as the same plant.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article , Jose Matas (Mallorca - Spain)
writes
The Species Plantarum in Gallica is the second edition, 1762
the first edition was 1753

Thank you for the site, I did not know about it.

Gallica first volume of it
http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096620
Gallica second volume at
http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul....exe?O=N096621

Could some one point the First Edition of Sp. Pl.

Best wishes,
Gallica has more than one edition of Species Plantarum. I believe that
the following is the second volume of the 1753 edition

http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096633

That would make the first volume

http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096632

but I think its the second volume you want anyway. Unfortunately, as PvR
points out, it's difficult to tell whether the name is spelt with an ae-
or oe-digraph. You'd need to compare other occurrences in the same
italic font to be sure.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for the link.
Here in Spain, all books about botany are in church latin, not scientific
language, that is
for example you will find "silvestris" instead of the correct "sylvestris",
even a tomato is systemetically
Lycopersicum esculentum instead of Lycopersion esculentus.
The maximum in botany "Flora Iberica, Castroviejo" is full of such "jewels"
and is used as "the reference".

Best wishes,


"Stewart Robert Hinsley" escribió en el mensaje
...
In article , Jose Matas (Mallorca - Spain)
writes
The Species Plantarum in Gallica is the second edition, 1762
the first edition was 1753

Thank you for the site, I did not know about it.

Gallica first volume of it
http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096620
Gallica second volume at
http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul....exe?O=N096621

Could some one point the First Edition of Sp. Pl.

Best wishes,
Gallica has more than one edition of Species Plantarum. I believe that
the following is the second volume of the 1753 edition

http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096633

That would make the first volume

http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/Consul...?E=0&O=N096632

but I think its the second volume you want anyway. Unfortunately, as PvR
points out, it's difficult to tell whether the name is spelt with an ae-
or oe-digraph. You'd need to compare other occurrences in the same
italic font to be sure.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
... it's difficult to tell whether the name is spelt with an ae- or
oe-digraph. You'd need to compare other occurrences in the same italic font
to be sure.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +
Not sure if that would do it.
Why do those scanned texts have nowhere near the quality that a decent
photocopy would have?
PvR

In article , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
... it's difficult to tell whether the name is spelt with an ae- or
oe-digraph. You'd need to compare other occurrences in the same italic font
to be sure.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +
Not sure if that would do it.
Why do those scanned texts have nowhere near the quality that a decent
photocopy would have?
PvR

I was under the impression that the problem was with the originals; the
19th century documents on Gallica are mostly a lot more readable than
the 18th century ones.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
I was under the impression that the problem was with the originals; the
19th century documents on Gallica are mostly a lot more readable than
the 18th century ones.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +
It is hard to say. I have not seen all that many, but what I saw of the
Flora Brasiliensis was pretty bad too. My impression is that it has to do
with the settings of the scanning equipment. To do it right you have to
adjust for the paper, which is different for every book. I rather suspect
that this fiddling around with the settings is not consistently done every
time a new book is scanned. Obviously it will be more difficult for older
books. Maybe the older books should be photographed
rather than scanned?

For the moment I am glad that those books are accessible on the internet,
but it is nothing like having the real thing in one's hands.
PvR