Mary Sue wrote: “IPNI lists it this way: Iridaceae Ferraria crispa Burm. subsp. nortieri <http://m.p.de/> M.P.de Vos -- J. S. African Bot. 45(3): 343 (1979), as 'nortierii'. (IK) From a practical standpoint it would be nice if someone checked the rules before accepting the way someone names a plant so it would not have to be changed down the road.” Mary Sue has provided a good example of the r which is not an r. Or at least I think she has. If the eponym for the name nortieri pronounced his name as a French name, then the name does not end in a consonant. Say the name French-style: what is the nature of the final sound? It’s a vowel sound. Yes, it’s spelled with what we speakers of English see as a consonant at the end of the word; but the word itself, the word as spoken, ends in a vowel sound. This overweening focus on the written word and simultaneous ignoring of the spoken word gets us into trouble. This question of the usage of a single i or a double ii has its roots in the phonetics of Latin and the languages derived from it. Those of us who speak non-Romance languages are apt to be clueless about this: it’s not something to which we attach any importance; our sense of euphony doesn’t speak to this. Here’s the deal in its most basic form: it’s difficult to enunciate multiple vowels sounds without intervening consonant sounds. Thus, the orthography of many languages puts a limit on the size of vowel clusters. And where there are not formal prohibitions and two or more vowels occur together, prevailing patterns of speech typically insert unwritten glides (in effect, consonants) between such vowels. Words which end in silent consonants (consonants preceded by a vowel) thus already end in one vowel. To add two more (the ii of nomenclature) would make the pronunciation awkward. That’s why Buddleja is spelled with a j: the j is a semi-vowel form of i (in other words a glide) inserted to separate the surrounding vowel sounds. This disjunction between the written form of words and their spoken form is largely ignored by many people. It isn’t enough to focus solely on the written form of the word. And it certainly doesn’t make sense to focus solely on the written form of the word and then attempt to justify orthographic decisions on the basis of what are actually rules of phonetics. The sound should come first, and the orthographic decisions should follow. I have a hunch only native speakers of English will be asking “Why?” An earlier phase of this thread touched on transliteration. But the term transliteration is a bit of a misnomer because it is not the letters themselves which determine the final outcome, but rather the sound which a letter represents in the source language. That’s why a German speaker will transliterate the Russian в as w and the English-speaking person will transliterate it as a v - and neither transliterates it as English B. In the old days of botanical nomenclature there was no recognized international standard for this; our legacy is thus varied. I wouldn’t want to predict what way botanical nomenclature will go in the future with these issues, but of this I am certain: those who attempt to separate current nomenclatural practice from that of the past, who want a botanical Latin independent of text-book Latin for instance, are shortchanging themselves. Yes, botanical Latin should be free to grow in its own direction. But if we are to retain an understanding of what our predecessors did and why they did it, we have to retain an understanding of their practices. While I think most of us would agree at least in spirit with Mary Sue’s suggestion that someone “check the rules”, I wonder who that someone might be. Most taxonomists are not linguists; the language used for nomenclature is an international language - it’s not enough that it agree only with the sensibilities of those of us in the English-speaking world; in so far as possible it should serve everyone. When I was a kid, I learned many Californian place names incorrectly because I had no experience with Spanish. Names such as La Jolla, Baja California and the like I pronounced as if they were English. When I got older and realized what was what - and pointed this out to others - many responded with chauvinistic huffiness: “You won’t catch me talking like some foreigner…” Except for the chauvinistic huffiness part, elements of this thread remind me of this. The words don’t always mean what you think they mean. Jim McKenney jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871º North, 77.09829º West, USDA zone 7 My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ BLOG! http://mcwort.blogspot.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/