Jim, It seems likely that you may have misinterpreted my extract from Stearns to indicate that the name of the person for whom Lapeirousea was named was a matter for botanical Latin, not for history. I chose the extract from this book, Botanical Latin by Stearns, because it is a present-day book used by a number of people at this site. The source of the information, where the name came from, was dealt with in a rather more obscure document. Since you have questions regarding Stearns, I shall quote from it. Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, V. 9, Bory de Saint-Vincent (published byRey y Gravier in 1826) gives " LAPEIROUSIA. BOT. PHAN. Thunberg (prodr. Flor. Capens.) a ainsi altere le nom du Lapeyrousia, genre etabli en l'honneur de Picot de Lapeyrouse. " In other words, Thunberg changed the name originally set up in honor of Picot de Lapeyrouse. It does not provide who set up Lapeyrousia. There is also discussion, a bit too lengthy to display here, about the Thunberg description, the change of name by him in 1800 and his dissemination of the data to Cassini and Linne fils (Linnaeus). My point is that of history and who the genus was named for - the reason for this thread. Matters realating to Botanical Latin rules for naming genera after people constitute a totally different matter. Stearns was however consistent with the Dictionnaire when he said that Lapeirousea was named after de Lapeyrouse. Andrew