The general sentiment here seems to be that pronunciation is a bit like arguing about color: not much point in it for a variety of good reasons. I agree with this and when someone asks about pronunciation I usually say "It is best to go by the same rules one uses in a Latin-based language such as Spanish, where vowel pronunciation is consistent". This leaves off accents and more but it is a start. This still leaves many problem areas that are more amusing than serious, such as honorific latinized names. For example, the orchid genus Rodriguezia, usually pronounced in the anglosphere as "RodriguEzia" whereas the original name is "RodrEEguez". Thus if one follows the "rule" commonly cited for Clivia of retaining the pronunciation of the person's name we have "RodrEEguezia" which is not euphonic to say the least. It's fun to implement this idea for honorific names but once they have been latinized they have really been formed into a different language and the original pronunciation of a person's name becomes irrelevant. Genuinely following pronunciation rules would mean following rules for Latin pronunciation. The latter has its own sensibilities that growers and even botanists are reticent to learn. Anglicized pronunciation, even considering regional variation (such as American vs. former Commonwealth states) is reasonably uniform and stands in contrast to those who speak the romance languages and other languages. These latter tend for the most part to follow the Latin vowel rule (ah, eh, ih, oh, oo as in food) and I think this trips up listeners and speakers more than strange-sounding accent placement. Awareness of different pronunciations is far more useful than searching for, or hoping for, a universal pronunciation. Dylan Hannon