The Odious Problem of Generic Names Ending in -idium vs. -odium: Confusable under Article 75? Author(s): Dan H. Nicolson and James N. Norris Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 30, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp. 476-477 Published by: International Association for (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220152 . Accessed: 16/08/2012 05:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.

http://www.jstor.org THE ODIOUS PROBLEM OF GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -IDIUM VS. -ODIUM: CONFUSABLE UNDER ARTICLE 75?

Dan H. Nicolson1 and James N. Norris1

It came to our attention that the well-known marine seagrass generic name, Syringodium Kiitzing (1860) (den Hartog, 1970), might be threatened by the earlier diatom name Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg (1845), as possibly being confusable names under Article 75.1 (Stafleu et al., 1978). Pleuripetalum and Pleuropetalum are listed in Art. 75.1 as likely to be confused, an example of "names treated as orthographic variants." The implication is that names differing only by an -i- and an -o-, particularly if a connecting vowel, are ipso facto confusable and the later, validly published name would either require renaming or nomenclatural conservation against the earlier name. Are Syringidium and Syringodium confusable names? While the orthographic difference between Pleuripetalum and Pleuropetalum is identical to the difference between Syringidium and Syringodium (i.e., interchange of -i- and -o-), they are not etymologically comparable. The suffix -idium is a simple diminutive, thus Syringidium is "a little syrinx (pipe)." The suffix -odium is a derivative compounded from -odes (similarity) plus -ium (diminutive), thus Syr- ingodium is "something like a small syrinx (pipe)." In short, we conclude they are not truly orthographic variants with the same derivation. What of other generic plant names ending in -idium and -odium? Thanks to a remarkable computer program run by Dr. David Bridge (ADP Office, Smithsonian Institution) on the computerized data file of Index Nominum Genericorum (Farr et al., 1979), we have a printout of plant generic names alphabetized backwards which permits one to search for generic names by their suffixes. Study of this printout revealed four pairs of generic names ending in -idium and -odium. These are listed here with the earlier published name first (for place of valid publication see Farr et al., 1979):

1. Cyathodium G. Kuntze, 1843 (Hepaticae) vs. Cyathidium Lindley ex Royle, 1835 (Aster- aceae) [=Saussurea de Candolle (1810), teste Airy Shaw, 1966]. 2. Desmodium Desvaux, 1813, nom. cons. (Fabaceae) vs. Desmidium C. Agardh ex Ralfs, 1848 (). 3. Physidium Schrader, 1821 (Scrophulariaceae) [=Angelonia Humboldt et Bonpland (1812), teste Airy Shaw, 1966] vs. Physodium Presl, 1835 (Sterculiaceae). 4. Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg, 1845 (diatom), [=Cerataulina Peragallo (1892), teste Van- Landingham, 1978] vs. Syringodium Kiitzing in Hohenacker, 1860 (Cymodoceaceae).

In our opinion none of these pairs of names are likely to be confused under Art. 75.1. Not only are they etymologically different, but they apply to reasonably taxonomically unrelated taxa. If our argument is accepted, then Desmidium Ralfs (1848) is not threatened by Desmodium Desvaux (1813), Physodium Presl (1835) is not threatened by Physidium Schrader (1821) and Syringodium Kiitzing (1860) is not threatened by Syringidium Ehrenb. (1845). If our argument is rejected, then it will be necessary to replace or, somehow, conserve Desmidium Ralfs (1848), Physodium Presl (1835), and Syringodium Kiitzing (1860). Replacement of the well-known name Desmidium would lead to many undesirable name changes for desmidiologists. However, conservation of Desmidium would present technical difficulties; it certainly could not be con- served against the well-known legume name Desmodium, already conserved. In any case, if Syringidium Ehrenb. (1845) is really a taxonomic synonym of Cerataulina Pergallo (1892), as indicated by VanLandingham (1978), it will replace Cerataulina unless the latter is conserved.

1 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

476 TAXON VOLUME 30 We also note that Syringidium Lindau, 1922 (Acanthaceae), with one in Colombia, is a later homonym of Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg, 1845 (diatoms). Our colleague, Dr. Dieter C. Wasshausen (Botany, Smithsonian Institution), proposes the following new generic name and combination:

Kalbreyeracanthus Wasshausen, nom. nov. Syringidium Lindau, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 8: 142. 1922 [non Syringidium C. G. Ehrenberg, Ber. Bekanntn. Verh. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1845: 347. 1845]. Kalbreyeracanthus atropurpureus (Lindau) Wasshausen, comb. nov. Syringidium atropurpu- reum Lindau, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 8: 142. 1922.

The is named in honor of William E. Kalbreyer, botanical collector, nurseryman and orchid exporter in West Tropical Africa and Colombia, between 1876 and 1881.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Grethe Hasle pointed out the diatom name Syringidium to us, and we thank Dr. R. Ross for correspondence on the status of the name and Dr. George C. Steyskal for comments on the manuscript. We especially thank Dr. David Bridge (Smithsonian Institution) for the com- puter program and the printout of reversely alphabetized ING file of generic names.

Literature Cited

Airy Shaw, H. K. 1966. J. C. Willis: A Dictionary of the Flowering and Ferns. 7th Ed. xxii + 1214 + lii pp. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Farr, E. R., J. A. Leussink and F. A. Stafleu (eds.). 1979. Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum). 3 vols. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema. Hartog, C. den. 1970. Sea-grasses of the World. Verh. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch.; Afd. Nat.; Tweedw. Reeks, Deel 159(1): 215 pp. + 20 pp. of photographs. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co. Stafleu, F. A. et al. (eds.). 1978. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature .... XIV + 457 pp. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema. VanLandingham, S. L. 1978. Catalogue of the Fossil and Recent Genera and Species of Diatoms and Their Synonyms. Pt. VII: Rhoicosphenia through Zygocerus. Pp. 3606- 4220. Vaduz: J. Cramer.

VALIDATION OF BLAKEOCHLOAVELDK. (GRAMINEAE)

J. F. Veldkampl

In a previous paper (Veldkamp, 1980) I proposed the name Blakeochloa Veldk. for Plin- thanthesis sensu S. T. Blake (1972), non Steudel (1853). When Blake split off three species from Notodanthonia Zotov, one of these happened to have been originally described in Plin- thanthesis Steudel. Blake chose this one as the lectotype of the latter genus and was thus not required to give a description of his genus again, as it was not new. However, because I have shown that his choice was mistaken, and that another species should be regarded as the type, and that the generic name therefore should be considered as a heterotypic synonym of No- todanthonia, Blake's genus now is without a formal description, and the name Blakeochloa Veldk. is invalid, as well as the new combinations proposed under it.

1 Rijksherbarium, Schelpenkade 6, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.

MAY 1981 477