Another voice here--re the "x" in hybrids. It is the multiplication sign, not the Greek chi. And it simply means "by" as in arithmetic,e.g., as in 2 x 4 for dimensions of lumber, or 24 x 50 as in measures of area, (a multiplication ) , or measure of volume, e.g., 2 x 4 x 12; or for plants, the former (female) by the latter (male). So there!! It is equivalent to the (.) in some algebraic notations and simply left out in many algebraic notations. ----- Original Message ----- From: <pbs-request@lists.ibiblio.org> To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 3:48 PM Subject: pbs Digest, Vol 68, Issue 19 > Send pbs mailing list submissions to > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > pbs-request@lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > pbs-owner@lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of pbs digest..." > > > List-Post:<mailto:pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > List-Archive:<http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbslist/> > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (Jane McGary) > 2. Re: to italicize or not to italicize...(off topic) (David Ehrlich) > 3. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (Jim McKenney) > 4. Re: to italicize or not to italicize...(off topic) (Jim McKenney) > 5. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (Marguerite English) > 6. Re: : Mirabilis jalapa (bonaventure@optonline.net) > 7. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (Jim McKenney) > 8. Re: Mirabilis jalapa (John Grimshaw) > 9. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (totototo@telus.net) > 10. Re: to italicize or not to italicize... (Jim McKenney) > 11. List messages (Mary Sue Ittner) > 12. Botanical Names & Italics (info@auchgourishbotanicgarden.org) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:47:13 -0700 > From: Jane McGary <janemcgary@earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20080916103739.016e5c58@pop.earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > I can answer Jennifer's questions based on experience editing for > horticultural publishers (and lots of others). > > All components of a species name (genus, species, subspecies, variety, and > forma) are italicized, but the interpolated abbreviations subsp., var., f. > are roman. In addition, when a subgenus or section is mentioned, though > this is not part of a plant's name, it is italic. Families and higher > taxonomic levels are roman. > > Common names are roman. Depending on the style adopted for a given > publication, they may or may not be capitalized; I prefer the "down style" > where capitals are used only for proper names (e.g., California poppy). > > Cultivar names are roman and enclosed in single quotes (and following > punctuation goes OUTSIDE the end quote). The names of seed strains (e.g., > the lily seed strain Golden Splendor) are capitalized, presumably because > they resemble trademarked brand names, but do not take the quotes. > > In regard to hybrids, there are some names such as Crocus x jessopiae that > cover all crosses of two particular species. Such names are italic and > separated by a multiplication sign, though in casual writing we usually > use > the letter "x" instead of the mult sign. A lily hybridizer told me that > such names are rendered, in speech, by saying the mult sign as "cross." > > On Jennifer's specific question about names of groups of irises, "bearded > iris" is a common name and is neither italic nor capped. "Oncocyclus > irises" is a problem because the name is that of a > section of subgenus Iris, and I would therefore capitalize it, but I would > not italicize it except in the phrase "section Oncocyclus." > > One confusing aspect is how to treat taxonomic genus names that are also > common names, or are being used in run of text like common names. The rule > for English-language writing is that when the word is pluralized with "s" > ("crocuses") or preceded by a word such as "a, the, these", it is > lowercase > and roman. A genus name alone is italic only when preceded by "the genus" > or used without a preceding article (e.g., "Crocus includes species that > flower in spring and that flower in fall"; "Eriogonum and Acantholimon are > appropriate dwarf shrubs for the dry bulb garden"). > > I'm sure there are other questions to do with this area of style, but > these > are the basic rules followed by most horticultural and botanical > publications. > > Jane McGary > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:56:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: David Ehrlich <idavide@sbcglobal.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize...(off topic) > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <423491.70409.qm@web81008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > What got me was that while unable to deal with italics, underscores and > such, it had no problem with the ? (eth) in Mr. Hafli?ason's name. > > Well, this letter (and some others) used to be in the English alphabet, > too.? We still see it used in attempts at archaicisms as in ?e olde ..., > which is now more commonly written ye olde..., because the ? has been > deleted from our alphabet, and the y sort of looks like it.? > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:14:45 -0400 > From: "Jim McKenney" <jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <001d01c9175e$efd99ab0$2f01a8c0@Library> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Two things about Jane McGary?s response to this thread caught my eye. > > > > Jane, I?m curious about your recommendation to capitalize the initial O in > oncocyclus. If we do not capitalize the initial letters of genera used as > vernacular names, what justification is there for the capitalization the > initial letter of a subgeneric taxon used the same way? > > > > Now on to something entirely different. You mention a crocus name ? there > are some names such as Crocus x jessopiae?. Bowles published this name as > Crocus jessoppiae (i.e., with two letters p) and, as if to forestall any > ?improvements? of his spelling went on to cite the name of the eponym, > Miss > Euphemia Jessopp. I notice that both you and Brian Matthew use other > spellings. I think this might be a case of great minds thinking alike, but > incorrectly. > > > > > > Jim McKenney > > jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com > > Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871? North, 77.09829? 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:17:16 -0400 > From: "Jim McKenney" <jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize...(off topic) > To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <002201c9175f$4986e900$2f01a8c0@Library> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > David Ehrlich wrote " What got me was that while unable to deal with > italics, underscores and such, it had no problem with the ? (eth) in Mr. > Hafli?ason's name." > > I'm glad you're here, David; keep it coming! > > Jim McKenney > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:21:27 -0700 > From: Marguerite English <meenglis@meenglis.cts.com> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <48CEA7A7.9060809@meenglis.cts.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Thank you all for commenting on this. In the past, we have mostly > followed Jane's guidelines but the question about the Iris descriptions > got us thinking. My style book says to italicize non-English words, so > I have done that, even in common names. I have to admit that I have > accepted an author's styles when he/she seemed to have definite rules, > so we have been inconsistent about this in the Bulb Garden. > Marguerite > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:26:32 +0000 (GMT) > From: bonaventure@optonline.net > Subject: Re: [pbs] : Mirabilis jalapa > To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > Message-ID: <e3d4b11d6c061.48cea8d8@optonline.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Hi Tsuh, > > I have this in my garden on the west side of my house. The yellow "breaks" > though the magenta in varying amounts on different branches of the plants. > These were the ones that survived best over the years coming from > carrot-like taproots every year. > > Bonaventure Magrys > Cliffwood Beach, NJ on the Raritan Bay > > > i hope i did not ask this question before already. here in NYC, i see > tree pits where M. jalapa has been naturalized. there are huge bushes of > this plant. the interesting thing is, some plants produce both yellow and > pink/magenta flowers. at first, i thought they were different plants, but > actually they were from the same one. has anyone seen this before? > > ========= > tsuh yang > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:36:31 -0400 > From: "Jim McKenney" <jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <002301c91761$f9f3a290$2f01a8c0@Library> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > While I'm being so picky about how names are spelled, I should apologize > to > Brian Mathew for misspelling his name in that very post. > > Jim McKenney > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:36:13 +0100 > From: "John Grimshaw" <j.grimshaw@virgin.net> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Mirabilis jalapa > To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <010001c91761$ef44f470$0501a8c0@home7c68b56fed> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > The multicoloured flowers of Mirabilis jalapa (pronounced, invariably, in > England with a J :) ), in whatever form they are (i.e several colours in > one > flower or different coloured flowers on the same plant), are caused by > transposons or jumping genes. See Wikipedia for further info on how they > work. Essentially they cause mini-mutations during the colour production > process. > > Jim Waddick mentioned Ipomoea 'Flying saucers' and roses as other plants > with similarly flaky flowers, but one could add Geranium pratense > 'Striatum' > and various antirrhinums to the list. Other factors causing variation in > flower colour may be virus, as in tulips (which probably works in much the > same way as transposons) and possibly tissue chimaeras. > > John Grimshaw > > > Dr. John M. Grimshaw > Sycamore Cottage > Colesbourne > Cheltenham > Gloucestershire > GL53 9NP > > Tel. 01242 870567 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "piaba" <piabinha@yahoo.com> > To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:04 PM > Subject: [pbs] Mirabilis jalapa > > >> but, john, what causes this phenomena? the ones that produce both color >> flowers are in one particular corner. all others i have seen are just >> magenta-flowered. is it a virus like the streaked tulips? >> >> ========= >> tsuh yang >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/ > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date: > 14/09/2008 > 07:16 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:03:12 -0700 > From: totototo@telus.net > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: > <19740414223344.FB393507380AB497@priv-edmwaa06.telusplanet.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 15 Sep 08, at 13:03, Jim McKenney wrote: > >> I have long regretted the lack of italics capability on this forum > > Lack of italics? Ah, dear people, the gurus who figured out how to make > plain > text email work, many eons ago, had a solution: > > /this is in italics/ > > _this is underlined_ (and may get translated into italics per old > typographic > convention) > > *this is emphasized* (probably bold in print) > > Therefore I can write > > > My patch of /Veriolitsis glomulama/, family Gloumlaceoideae, is blooming > its > silly head off at the moment. The local pipistrelle bats are very happy. > > > See? Now, wasn't that just as easy as pie? > > > On 15 Sep 08, at 9:34, David Ehrlich wrote: > >> . . . the x for hybrids is not the letter ex, but a multiplication sign; > it?should not have serifs, and it should be centered with the text, not?on > the > line like an alphabetic letter. > > On Windows machines, alt+0215 gets it for you. On Unicode machines, e.g. > Linux, > it's a little trickier to compose characters in an analogous way, so it's > probably easier to set it up in one of the character palettes where it can > be > easily accessed via the usual point'n'drool interface. > > That it disappeared is likely due to ? being transliterated to x in the > mail > list software. > > I suspect that all of us use computers that have the multiplication sign > handy. > This is a detail of the list software that might benefit from being > revisited. > > > -- > Rodger Whitlock > Victoria, British Columbia, Canada > Maritime Zone 8, a cool Mediterranean climate > on beautiful Vancouver Island > > http://maps.google.ca/maps/… > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:34:28 -0400 > From: "Jim McKenney" <jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com> > Subject: Re: [pbs] to italicize or not to italicize... > To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <002401c9176a$127130f0$2f01a8c0@Library> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Roger Whitlock wrote " Now, wasn't that just as easy as pie?" > > If you say so, Roger, but I would like more sugar in mine, please. > > And then he went on to say "I suspect that all of us use computers that > have > the multiplication sign handy." > > I still have not forgotten the day Jane McGary pointed out, in response to > my then usage of the letter x, that the proper sign is the multiplication > sign. I truly thought she was pulling my leg. I'm not sure what about this > revelation floored me more, the fact that not only was Jane right, but > that > there are, on the one hand, people who think this sort of think is very > important, and on the other hand, people who get paid to make these > decisions. Hmmmm...I realize now that I made some faulty career choices. > > And anyway, in my heart of hearts I believe the symbol in question is the > Greek letter chi, not a multiplication sign. The meaning is "cross" (as in > "I crossed species A and species B), not "times" in the arithmetic sense. > Whoever says "I timesed species A and species B"? > > Actually, in this modern computer world, x and ? are different entities, > unlike in the world of vision, where they seem the same. > > Some of my friends, who occasionally criticize me for my ?species > snobbery?, > fail to realize that I grew up seeing the x before plant names and thought > that meant ?cross that one off the list?. Now I'm much more sophisticated > and know that the ? means "entering notholand". > > When I need it in windows, I make sure I?m in HTML mode, then click on > Insert, Symbol, and the multiplication sign is there in the table of > symbols. That?s the way I composed this message. I?ll convert to plain > text > now - and it's still there. Let's see if it makes it onto the posted form > of > this message. > > > Jim McKenney > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:53:17 -0700 > From: Mary Sue Ittner <msittner@mcn.org> > Subject: [pbs] List messages > To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20080915123309.034e9dd8@mail.mcn.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Dear David, > > Messages to our list can only be in text. You must have sent yours both in > html and text. The html (formatting) was stripped and the text remained. > This is why some message sometimes appear blank when we get them. The html > has been stripped and nothing is left. > > What's interesting about this is that formatting your messages to make > words bold, a different font or size, underlined, italicized, marked > through and adding images all make the message html. But it appears that > there are some symbols that can be added that allow the message to be > text. > > When we started this list, anything done in html came out unreadable in > the > archives so that's why we set it up for text. Also we hoped that using > text > would make for easier cross platform sharing and allowing everyone to read > the message regardless of the equipment they used. Symbols are not always > seen the same cross platform however even if the message is text. > > I'm sorry that made it difficult for you to share examples in the most > recent thread. You can write Jen privately with your examples however > since > the whole purpose of the question was to help her with the newsletter. > > Mary Sue > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:50:18 +0100 > From: <info@auchgourishbotanicgarden.org> > Subject: [pbs] Botanical Names & Italics > To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > Message-ID: <002201c9183d$d45f8030$0301a8c0@homepc> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > There have been a couple of good submissions on this topic which for some > readers might be spoiled or confused by the failure of some software > incoming to correctly reflect text out going with ? in the place of etc, > etc. This text is in OUTLOOK EXPRESS. > > If the following is of any use I will be glad to have helped, leaving > aside the issue, if there is one, of European versus American protocols, I > imagine your publication is read by and available to a much wider audience > therefore the issue or generalisation stated sometimes as two countries > separated by a single language might resonate for some. However, the > language of Botany is not English of whatever stripe or any other, it is > in Latin and thereby avoids national sensibilities really rather well and > the convention which exists for the international community which may be > reflected in your readership / membership would expect to see written > botanical references in the conventional manner. i.e. Latin, which is NOT > restricted to Europeans of whom only a small proportion are speakers of > Standard English, e.g. programmes versus programs, colour versus colour, > autumn versus fall, etc. > > For my book on "Lilies and their Allies" I am sticking strictly by the > conventional presentation of botanical names as well as their association, > where, if and when it occurs, with that of horticultural names, these two > are quite specifically written differently to avoid confusion by readers > who not unreasonably expect what they read or is presented for reading to > reflect conventional accuracy. One of the most egregious examples of poor > presentation is where a plant's Latin identity is present with both parts > of the Bi-nomal in upper case / capital letter e.g. Lilium Japonicum > Thunb. using no italics but bold type such as is often seen in glossy > colour catalogues. > > Examples as follows: a. Lilium nepalense D.Don can also be written for > references if these are thought to be required as > > b. Lilium nepalense D.Don in Mem. Wern. > S. Edinburgh 3. 412 (1821); > Syn. L. ochroleucum Wallich ex Baker, > op cit. 231 (1874) pro.syn.- Lilium nepalense var. nepalense > Baker in J. RHS. 4. 41 (1831) > > Where a species has produced a selection or form = forma it needs to be > shown differently as another contributor has already correctly pointed > out, e.g. a. Lilium longiflorum 'Holland's Glory' a strain developed from > Lilium longiflorum f. takeshima The lower case letter ' f' is an > acceptable abbreviation for the botanical term 'forma' which like subsp. > and ssp. are acceptable versions for the term 'subspecies' along with > 'cv.' the latter abbreviation denoting 'cultivar', all of which are not > italicised and an hypothetical example would perhaps be Lilium > hypotheticum subsp. carolinianum var. yanktsii f. pendula alba cv. 'Joe's > Nightmare' > > There is a further point which might be of help, when an authority for a > validly published name is cited, there has evolved a convention whereby > some names can be abbreviated, but this isn't set in concrete, e.g. L. or > Linn. for the Swedish inventor of the binomial system Carl Linnaeus, > sometimes incorrectly written as Karl Linnea. Thunb. for Thunberg, etc > etc. > > Lifting examples from Indexes in "Lilies" which might help, hopefully, are > as follows and if considered in the context of the fact that where there > are, roughly, some 120 to 140 taxa = distinct botanical plants either at > species or subspecies level there are over 600 synonyms being names > genuinely properly published but owing to the International Rules on > Nomenclature the name first validly published by date is the name a plant > MUST be known by in botanical literature. Perhaps the most inconvenient > and inappropriate example of a botanical name I have come across if that > of Lilium pensylvanicum Ker-Gawler (1805) for a plant Ker-Gawler > mistakenly took to have come from North America because Mark Catesby 'sent > it' from there when in fact Catesby got it from a Russian in Alaska, its > homeland in fact being central & eastern Russia when, to correct his > mistake, he re-published the name Lilium dauricum Ker-Gawler (1809). Such > a adjustment might be accepted then however even the Ru > ssians fully accept the name Lilium pensylvanicum, presumably through > gritted teeth, because that is the correctly validly published name unless > another were to turn up with an earlier date, so far I at least haven't > found it. Using Lilium dauricum may be convenient or lax but it is never > the less incorrect. I think in your journal, your efforts would be greatly > appreciated, and admired by your peers, if you are rigorous in your use of > correct nomenclature as it will then come to be trusted and be relied upon > for your efforts to achieve accuracy. However much you try there will > always be occasions when someone will bring to your attention an example > or two of earlier published names in order to let you make appropriate > adjustments, these take place in almost every Genus of botanical plants so > are bound to happen. > > This 'note' has taken longer, much longer, than intended so thank you for > baring with me, I only hope I have got it right. Should you have any other > questions you might want to put to me, please feel free and do so direct > if that's helpful, meantime best of luck with your worthy endeavour, would > that everyone was as willing to be so meticulous. You might also like to > Google up IPNI which is a site jointly run between RBG Kew and the Gray at > the Arnold, type in the family if known and or the genus name this will > 99.9 % of the time provide you with much of what you need, including > synonymy where it exists. > > Iain > > > > -- > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for home users. > SPAMfighter has removed 18060 spam emails to date. > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len/ > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > > > End of pbs Digest, Vol 68, Issue 19 > ***********************************