I don't remember anyone having a hard time with the ITA, but the on the first day of school in second grade, the new teacher wrote a paragraph on the board in regular letters, that we were to copy. One kid raised his hand and said,"But Miss Jones, we don't know those letters!" Apparently no one told this poor young teacher that we had learned ita instead. She left the room for a few minutes, came back and told us to copy it anyway. I thought the regular alphabet was easier! That was the end of it, nobody had problems reading or writing the regular alphabet after that day.
One thing that gets me about the latin names is the inconsistencies, like sinensis and chinensis - why can't they just pick one? Another is the gender of the genus - evidently someone recently figured out that Euonymus is neuter (or male?), so now the species is alatus instead of alata. It's so easy to misspell the species names because of the gender issue. Et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum
How do I say it?
good golly gee.....y'all mean there's TWO alpahbets now?????
veni-vedi-verbosity
"Silly Trix rabbit . . . Alpahbets are for dogs."
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Thanks for the opportunity, Debi. (giggle)
---------------------------------------
Ah, Claypa, are you a fellow language nut in disguise? Then you will love this Dictionary of Botanical Epithets: http://www.winternet.com/~chuckg/dictionary.html . It touches (just a bit) on grammar. Besides, it was authored and is maintained by a friend of mine here in MN. For the rest of you normal people, the most comprehensive Botanical Latin dictionary I have found is right here on DG: The Botanary.
As for the chinensis/sinensis debate, I don't think there really is one. Chinensis was first used, and names that include that will most likely never be changed. Decided by someone, sinensis is the correct adjective, and I think you will find it used in more (relatively speaking) recent identifications, or in names relating to older valid names with chinensis in them.
Euonymus alatus. hmmm.
I looked in my older books dating back to the early 1940's. They all concur: E. alatus. The 1950's are a mismash, some say alatus, some alata. Alata, of course, is feminine, and alatus, most likely masculine.
In Zipcodezoo.com, under notes just below the tax chain for E.alata http://zipcodezoo.com/Plants/E/Euonymus_alata/ and for E. alatus http://zipcodezoo.com/Plants/E/Euonymus_alatus/ . The former dated 2001, the latter dated 2005.
Apparently alatus is now correct (again). What has been going on, I don't have a clue. A good question for Resin on the tree and shrub forum, don't you think?
Wow, that first sentence threw me for a loop. All that comes to mind is
"Dyslexics Untie!!"
Sometimes I wish there were a botany and nomenclature forum, other times my head spins from trying to understand it all! I did take years of Latin and some in college, but it was seldom pronounced the same by different teachers. And they would make words up or modify them, because in Latin there was no way to say a female teacher, for example.
I remember a thread where Resin and ViburnumValley were pronouncing a tree's name very differently - the letter C was the point of contention. Some always pronounce it as a hard C, like K. I think the name was Chamaecyparis, as "kamaykyparis".
I just ran across a Holly named Ilex centrochinensis published in 1949, which surprised me. (It's a parent of a newish holly hybrid, 'Centennial Girl')
Thanks for the reminder, that is a great site; I used to have it in favorites but it didn't make the switch to the new computer. The Botanary is great too, I just wish it had a little more info, like the etymology.
sp. edit
This message was edited Dec 19, 2008 12:58 AM
Moby, I always see the name salvia wrong. The title of this thread made me look more than twice:
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/932968/
lol, i saw that one too, claypa! you knew it had to be wrong; there is no such thing as gopher proof saliva! picture that big-toothed ratty climbing down your throat......omg.
Geez, I hope my saliva is gopher proof!
because in Latin there was no way to say a female teacher, for example.
Interesting about that, I just assumed that since the romance languages are based on Latin, that Latin would be the same in this respect as say, Spanish, where endings of the same root words can sometimes indicate multiple genders (muchacho, muchacha).
And now that I think about it, somewhere somehow sometime (again) I remember seeing the classical Latin for "man" and "woman". They were completely different words. Never thought anything of it, until now.
Now if you really want your head to swim, Claypa, maybe have a gander at the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/ The Vienna Code is the most recent., and
not to be confused with the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP).