Talk:List of Rosa species

message: Has this not now changed to R. wichurana? I haven't seen any botanical text stating this to be so, but in his 2006 - 2007 catalogue, UK rose grower Peter Beales (who holds the UK National Collection of Rosa species), states: "Irritatingly, after 160 or more years, to conform to the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature, the spelling of Rosa wichuraiana has been changed to wichurana. This makes every rose book written since 1834 inaccurate. What is wrong with precedent? This is pedantry gone mad!" I include the quote in its entirety as it is rather amusing - but I'm assuming that he isn't mistaken in the fact that R. wichuraiana is now R. wichurana?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleCloudedWhite (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, wichuraiana it is. IPNI is usually reliable about matters of orthography. IPNI entry. The ICBN is decided on by votes at the botanical congress, and the aim is always to find a compromise between stability and fairness to all authors. I went to one meeting and was very impressed, it was the best demonstration of what scholarly democracy ought to be that I've ever seen. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that the info from IPNI is incorrect? I'm querying it because I've just had a look in all my books, and the newer ones list it as R. wichurana. Interestingly, in Martyn Rix and Roger Phillips' 1994 book "Roses", it's R. wichuraiana, but in their "The Ultimate Guide to Roses", published 2004, it's become R. wichurana, with "also called R. wichuraiana" in parentheses. I'm thinking some kind of change must have been proposed for all these sources (including the Royal Horticultural Society in their 2004 "Encyclopedia of Roses") to list wichurana as the correct form? (Also, I remember a discussion on this matter taking place a few years back at a meeting of the UK Historic Roses Group - people were mentioning that wichuraiana had become wichurana). Any possible explanantion for these discrepancies with the IPNI? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: That is a good question, which takes a bit of tracking down. The original publication is in our library here, it is François Crépin, 1886. Rosa Synstylae: études sur les roses de la section Synstyleés. Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique 25(part 2):163–217 (I think the last page was 217, but have mislaid a note about that). Part 2 of the journal is also called Comptes-redus des séances de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique, which is how it is listed in IPNI. The author definitely uses the spelling Rosa Wichuraiana, and doesn't discuss why that name. The old-fashioned capitalization indicates that it is named either after a place or a person, but I can only guess that the intention was to name it after Max Ernst Wichura, the botanist. If that was the case, we get into one of the hairiest parts of the code of nomenclature, article 60.11. I think that the relevant point is part (c) of Recommendation 60C (which is made mandatory by article 60.11), which produces "wichurana". I'll ask for help from the IPNI editors! Nadiatalent (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for looking into this - it sounds like you've been doing a bit of legwork around the library floors! I wait to hear what the IPNI people have to say ..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Update: a very fast response from the IPNI editors is as follows: that since Crépin did not make clear who he was naming this species after, they are reluctant to change the name from the original spelling. I think we could explain that on a page about R. wichurana/wichuraiana, i.e. that there currently two different opinions in circulation. Are you considering making up a species page? Nadiatalent (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have a bash - I had started making species pages recently, and was starting with ones I've actually grown  (R. willmottiae, R. fedtschenkoana). I was going to do R. nitida next, but yes, why not make it R. wichuraiana (or R, wichurana!) instead? (Actually I personally prefer wichurana, but only because I don't have to think how to spell it!) Incidentally, while on the subject of creating articles, do you know if it makes any difference to an article's google ranking if it's created using the Article Wizard or not? I ask because the first plant article I created (Ilex cornuta), I used the Article Wizard, and it's since always been ranked 2nd or 3rd on google page 1. But then with the rose articles mentioned above, I didn't use the Article Wizard (because I wanted to avoid the 'New unreviewed article' template which hangs around for months), and those articles are nowhere to be seen on google - I went down 6 or 7 pages, but nothing. ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the time and inclination, go for it. I've never used the article wizard. Here's a thought though, if you use it, a few editors will review the new unreviewed article, and that will provide a hit count for google. Google is very conscious of hit counts. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Rosa wichuraiana''