[Taxacom] The number of ens in brunneus

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

At the risk of stating the overly obvious, botanical nomenclature is not
primarily concerned with what linguistically would be the best Latin, but
rather with what botanical tradition regards as appropriate Latin (also see
Pre. 10).

The non-Latin word brun has led to a number of accepted Latin words
(including the name Bruno for Robert Brown). Stearn's Botanical Latin
includes brunneus in his listing for "brown" on page 238 (ed.4). In the
explanatory text he states "[b]runneus or bruneus is a general term for
brown, ..." going on to also mention "brunnescens" and "bruneolus" (the
latter with a single -n-!) and a few compounds with "brunneus". That the
botanically preferred spelling is with double -nn- is also borne out by the
IPNI-search.

A fairly close analogue can be found on page 208, where Stearn prefers
babylonicus, aegyptiacus, brittanicus and hispanicus for botanical purposes
over babylonius, aegyptius, brittanus and hispanus.

With both spellings existing in Latin there is no reason to correct
Cynosurus aegyptius, Senecio aegyptius, Ipomoea aegyptia and Malva aegyptia, 
even though (for botanical purposes) it would have been preferable if they 
had been published with the termination -iacus/a.

Nowhere in Art 60 is there any opening for correcting epithets that use 
single -n- forms of brunneus (and the like), unless they can be shown to be 
typographical errors, which they usually won't be. From the perspective of 
uniformity it may be a pity such epithets exist, but they are to be accepted 
in their original spelling

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
 _____________________________________________
> From: Patricia Eckel
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:29 PM
 Subject: brunneus
>
> I have recently been asked a question regarding the spelling of the
> "Latin"  word for brown: brunneus, brunneolus, brunnescens. Stearn's
> Botanical Latin  follows this convention as does Brown's Composition of
> Scientific Words, that  is, the spelling with the double 'n.' However, a
> colleague has queried me  regarding an alternative spelling with a
> single 'n': bruneus, and whether  this should be corrected to
> 'brunneus.' My copy of Webster's III, which I  usually use for most
> etymological challenges, indicates "brunneous" and  "brunnescent" as
> "dark brown - chiefly used scientifically."  The dictionary  goes on to
> say that brunet (brunette) "brown" is derived from ML (Medieval  Latin)
> and that this word is actually derived from the German. The word
> brun(n)eus does not occur in any of my classical references (including
> Lewis and Short).
>
> After searching for various epithets in the International Plant Name
> database, I found that there were 109 epithets in brunnescens to 7 for
> brunescens; 115 of brunnea, 10 of brunea; 32 of brunneus, 4 for bruneus,
> so clearly the double 'n' is in the majority of (botanical) epithets.
>
> The issue is, are both renditions of brun(n)- justified? It seems on
> looking at various zoological websites that epithets in brunn- are
> actually corrected to brun-; in one case there is the Northern Idaho
> Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus brunneus bruneus.
>
> Does "botanical usage" justify the double 'n'? Are any corrections of
> this epithet spelling justified? perhaps justified somewhere in Article
> 60 of the ICBN?
>
> Thank you for your comments and I thank Richard Zander for his posting
> of this message on TAXACOM.
>
> P. M. Eckel
>
>
> ______________________
> Patricia M. Eckel
> Bryology Group
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
> voice: 314-577-5180
> email: patricia.eckel at mobot.org
> Web sites:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/BFNA/bfnamenu.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>