I was an academic botanist. I do not know of an official term for species names that are not actually published, other than "unpublished", "undescribed", or "invalid". But it sounds in this case like there is some doubt as to whether these specimens even warrant consideration as species, so a term like "provisional" or "unconfirmed" seems more appropriate to me. I do not think "unresolved" is the correct term here. I quote the following from http://theplantlist.org/: Around 20% of names are unresolved <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about#unresolved> indicating that the data sources included provided no evidence or view as to whether the name should be treated as accepted or not, or there were conflicting opinions that could not be readily resolved. (and later:) Unresolved names are those to which it is not yet possible to assign a Status of either ‘Accepted’ or ‘Synonym’. For an explanation of how names were assigned a status please refer to How The Plant List was Created <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about#created>. There is more on that page if you are curious. But the point is, when they use "unresolved", they are referring to the synonymy status of published scientific names. In your case, the names are not published scientific names, so there is no question of "resolution" in that regard (i.e. they are neither accepted names nor synonyms). In the case of those single-collection Hippeastrums, the uncertainty seems to apply to their taxonomic identity itself. You/we think they might be species, but we're not entirely sure (otherwise why not just publish formal names in the monograph?). I am not aware of any standard term for this case, but words like provisional, potential, unconfirmed, and unproven, come to mind. In other taxonomic literature, species that are recognized to exist but do not have published scientific names are often (usually?) referred to using colloquial labels in double quotes, e.g. *Eleocharis* sp. “Coonjimba Billabong” (a real example of a plant I collected in northern Australia--a region which recently contained many well-known species without formal scientific names). I am not sure what format you are currently using for the names of those "provisional" Hippeastrums, but in my opinion, it would be strange and confusing to use names that resemble scientific names but are not actual scientific names. For one thing, in formal documents, the genus name and specific and sub-specific epithets of scientific species names are italicized (or otherwise embellished) to indicate their status as scientific names, and are followed by the authority for the name, e.g. *Lilium* *paradalinum* subsp. *vollmeri *(Eastw.) M.W. Skinner. However, the names for those provisional Hippeastrums have no authority (since they are not validly published names) and it is questionable to italicize them, so writing the name as (for example) "Hippeastrum noviflorum" (with or without the italics) is confusing--it appears to be an incorrectly formatted formal scientific name, and gives the wrong impression that it really *is* a recognized name. I would naively advise the use of the doubly-quoted format I described above, e.g. *Hippeastrum *sp. "noviflorum". There are no rules about what you put inside the quotes since it is just an informal label. Here is an example of a paper of mine from the American Journal of Botany in which I used several names in this format for Northern Australian species of Eleocharis (see "E. sp." under Appendix I): https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/… My understanding of “cuenca” from my work/travel in Bolivia and Argentina is that it does indeed mean “basin” but it is used perhaps a bit more broadly than we use it here. According to Wikipedia a geological basin is “a large, low-lying area”, which in practice can include the slopes of adjacent upland areas. Are there contexts In the monograph in which this definition would be inappropriate? I personally think it sounds strange to describe a plant locality in terms of its "watershed", although I don't disagree with the technical accuracy of that term. If "basin" doesn't make sense in some cases because the region is too mountainous (by which I assume you mean steep), I would probably consider the word "valley" or "(high) slopes of valley", etc., before I would use "watershed", personally. On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robert Lauf via pbs < pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: > I haven't seen a topographic map of the region in question, but if you > don't think "basin" describes the actual landform, then "watershed' would > be a more conventional term than "drainage". > Bob > On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 06:29:33 PM EDT, Jane McGary via pbs < > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: > > Lee, > > Thanks, I was leaning toward "unconfirmed" as a neutral word. But I > probably will use "unresolved" if that's what Kew prefers. "Ratified" > sounds more like a decision made by an authoritative body. What Lara et > al. mean is that the garden specimens, which seem to have been collected > somewhere in nature, haven't been refound (yet). > > I didn't like "basin" for "cuenca" because of the mountainous nature of > the places described, but "drainage" is good. How about "side drainage" > for subcuenca? > > There is a lot of new material on H. leopoldii, which actually was > refound, so the last job I have on the revision is translating that. > > Lara has added a new third author, his assistant Margoth Atahuachi > Burgos, who has been most helpful in setting up the revised Spanish text > so we could work on it efficiently. > > Jane McGary, Portland, Oregon, USA > > On 7/15/2020 1:34 PM, Lee Poulsen via pbs wrote: > > To me it sounds like he means “unconfirmed”. The Plant List’s > “Unresolved” seems the closest to that. They’re not discredited. And I > think “questionable” and “doubtful species” seem too strong for what is > being described. > > > > Bob’s right; I’ve seen the term “cuenca” used for things like a drainage > basin or watershed such as the Mississippi watershed, or ocean basin such > as the North Atlantic hurricane basin. > > > > --Lee Poulsen > > Pasadena, California, USA - USDA Zone 10a > > Latitude 34°N, Altitude 1150 ft/350 m > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…