Thanks, Chris. Now let’s ask the same question from a different point of view. A check of IPNI suggests that Canna musifolia was not validly published under the ICBN. Also, the paper “The Cannaceae of the World” by H. Maas-Van De Kamer & P.J.M. Maas in BLUMEA 53: 247–318 Published on 29 October 2008 (thank you Alani) lists Canna musifolia (and its orthographic variants) as a “nomen subnudum”. [For those of you trying to follow this, a nomen nudum is a name published without description. The term “nomen subnudum” (evidently an unofficial term) is sometimes used to describe names which are not quite a nomen nudum, but otherwise not adequately described.] Chris, you framed your response in terms of names published under the ICBN. If the name is not validly published under the ICBN, doesn’t that change things? For purposes of discussion, let’s say Canna musaefolia was not published validly under the ICBN. In that case, would the spelling musaefolia be available for a cultivar name? 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/