Thanks, Giorgio for the nice references to the epithet that uses *coeruleus*. I highly trust the folks who put together the Jepson Manual. They are some of the best botanists out there, and the manual is a fantastic resource for both the science community and the public. Searching through Flora of North America (which is another fantastic resource) I found this:* Calochortus coeruleus* (Kellogg) S. Watson, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. 14: 263. 1879 (as caeruleus). Cyclobothra coerulea Kellogg, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 2: 4. 1863; Calochortus coeruleus var. fimbriatus Ownbey; C. maweanus Leichtlin ex Baker So it seems to me that it was first described as *Cyclobothra coerulea*, then was redescribed as *Calochortus caeruleus* by S. Watson. I can only guess that he changed the epithet spelling and treated it as an *orthographic error *according to the Code. However, the Code also has a very strong rule on precedence, which states that only in blatant mispellings should be corrected and treated as orthographic errors (ICBN, Vienna Code: Div. II, Chap. VII, Sec. I, Art. 60.1). Since both *caeruleus *and *coeruleus *is common in latin literature, and is "accepted", the rule of precedence should be observed. So if you're a stickler for "correct" spelling then you can spell it *caeruleus*, but the name accepted by the Code is *coeruleus*. Hope that helps. Thanks for the exercise in etomology :) Nhu On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, David Ehrlich <idavide@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > What is the correct spelling for Calochortus caeruleus/coeruleus? > Wikipedia claims that coer… is an incorrect spelling and that it should be > caer…. The Gerritsen & Parsons book spells it coer…, and makes no mention > of an alternate (or incorrect) spelling. The Jepson Manual also uses > coer…., but IPNI uses caer…. Calflora spells it coer…, but directs you to > Calphotos where it is spelled caer…. > > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerantheum/