Talk:Stewartia

message: Where does this "Stuartia" business come from?  It is uncited, and ITIS for example, says nothing about Stuartia.  Is it all a joke which originated here: ? Kingdon 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References added. Bean gives a detailed summary of the origin of the erroneous spelling. For Stewartia to be used, it would require conservation under the ICBN; however, "Stewartia" is not currently a conserved name. - MPF 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise extreme caution with "correcting" the name Stewartia to Stuartia.  Linnaean names are not quite sacrosanct, but in the absence of something like a clear typographical error, they come close.  I would especially point to ICBN Art. 60.3 and Ex. 6. The fact remains that the spelling Stuartia has been attempted several times and subsequently rejected by several different generations of systematists.  Stewartia is the spelling accepted in virtually all published and online references, including publications by Theaceae specialists (I find the references cited in the article less than compelling; the most influential is probably the Kew list, but I am always suspicious of outputs from databases that do not explicitly identify the sources of their data).  I believe the article would be better to treat the name as "Stewartia" with a note regarding the orthography and proposals to "correct" the name to Stuartia.  MrDarwin 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: After doing some checking (including with a Theaceae specialist), I have to object even more strongly to this move.  Orthographic error or not, "Stuartia" has been roundly rejected by specialists who have treated the family Theaceae and the genus Stewartia itself.  Treatments of the family accept "Stewartia" (Flora of China and Stevens et al. 2004 in Kubitzki's Families & Genera of Vascular Plants) as have all recent treatments of the genus (Spongberg 1974, J. Arnold Arbor. 55: 182; Prince 2002, Castanea 67: 290-301).  An argument can be made that the name should be "corrected", and this argument can (and should) be included in the article, but this argument is made by the most minuscule minority of plant systematists.  In light of the clear consensus among current systematists that the original Linnaean spelling Stewartia is to be retained, that spelling should be adopted in this article; to do otherwise is essentially engaging in original research.  MrDarwin 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the justification for treating it as an orthographic error? Art. 60 seems very clear to me.--Curtis Clark 14:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The justification is that it was named for somebody whose name is properly spelled "Stuart". That fact is not in contention, but it has been addressed numerous times.  I think MPF is being a little too bold here by declaring "Stuartia" to be the correct spelling.  Linnaeus himself continued to use the spelling "Stewartia" in every edition, presumably after becoming aware of his error--this is one of the primary justifications used for retaining his original spelling.  MrDarwin 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems quite clear, from Art. 60.1, Ex. 3 (which, as a first letter correction, shows that 60.3 does not always apply). Whether Linnaeus was ever aware of the error I doubt, as the correction was first made (according to Bean) by L'Héritier in 1785. Neither can it be claimed that 'Stewart' is an intentional Latinisation (60.7). The error arose from a painting by Ehret of a specimen of S. malacodendron in Stuart's Caenwood House garden in London, which was given to Linnaeus by Isaac Lawson 'with a dedication to the Earl in which his family name was mis-spelt "Stewart"' (Bean 4: 508). BTW, the genus was named after Stuart, not for him; there is no suggestion that Stuart ever requested Linnaeus to give his name to the genus. - MPF 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will be coming back to edit this article when I have more time.  I do think a good argument could be made either way, but the fact remains that Stewartia has been universally adopted by the systematists who are actually working on the group.  I'm particularly bothered by the statement that 'Some authors, particularly in North America (such as ITIS [4]), have not observed the orthographic correction and still use the erroneous spelling "Stewartia" (emphasis added).  In fact Stewartia is the spelling adopted by Chinese botanists for the Flora of China (where a large number of species in this genus occur).  Bean's somewhat outdated treatment aside, I have no idea how prevalent the spelling "Stuartia" is in the U.K. but as usual I checked a standard reference, the New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening (1992) and was surprised to see that it accepts "Stewartia" as the correct spelling. MrDarwin 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling Stuartia is close to universal in Britain, except for texts with heavy US influence (e.g. the New RHS Dictionary). - MPF 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I spent my lunch hour doing a major (if rather quick and dirty) edit that I'm sure MPF won't be entirely happy with.  Contrary to his claims that "Stewartia" is in use primarily in American publications and websites, I have been hard-pressed to find any publications, aside from the British sources he cites, that accept "Stuartia" (and even numerous British publications seem to have accepted the Linnaean spelling).  It seems that the argument was made and lost long ago that "Stuartia" should be adopted as the correct spelling, perhaps because "Stewartia" continued to be used by Linnaeus himself in subsequent publications, and the original spellings of Linnaean names are generally given great deference (as emphasized in ICBN Art. 60.3, "The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name", followed immediately by several examples of orthographic "errors" that are not to be corrected).  At any rate, the article should be moved back to Stewartia; keeping it under Stuartia gives the false impression that this name has been accepted, when it clearly has not. MrDarwin 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone who cites the Sprague 1928 ref and specifically contradicts it? I also think that before any change is made, a comment should be sought from Kew's nomenclatural experts. I certainly don't think it should be done by weight of usage alone, but that more significance should be given to 'legal' representation from analysis of the ICBN rules. - MPF 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When one enters the search term "Stuartia" in the Kew Bibliographic Databases , one gets 13 results, which either give Stuartia, Stewartia, Stuartia (Stewardsia) or Stewardsia (Stuartsia). In other words, in the past even experts experienced problems naming this genus. All we can do is explain this to our readers, as did Mr. Darwin and provide disambiguation pages.  JoJan 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't think it should be done by weight of usage alone, but on the basis of 'legal' representation from analysis of the ICBN rules. And I fully trust Kew in the quality of their nomenclatural lawyers. - MPF 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that spelling of scientific names should never be done by weight of use. On the other hand, nothing presented so far convinces me that Stewartia is an orthographic error to be corrected; there are just too many counterexamples in the code for this to hold any water.--Curtis Clark 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet Kew do so, and there isn't a better set of nomenclatural experts, except perhaps for Utrecht or Leiden. - MPF 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if it is an orthographic error to be corrected, what matter is if it was corrected--I don't see any where that we at Wikipedia are the ones to be correcting the error, considering the rigorous requirements for correcting orthographic errors, including publication in taxon--surely that would be original research, MPF?  Kew lawyering would be unpublished research, but they might indeed point us to definitive sources on the use of Stuartia or correct their database to Stewartia.  Can't hurt to ask them.  KP Botany 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree clearly original research if it was proposed here, but it isn't; it is following Kew's (and Bean's, etc.) example. Yes, good idea on asking Kew; if they have changed their advice I'd be happy to accept that. - MPF 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's hardly fair - it is not my just opinion, but that of the nomenclatural experts at Kew, and that of Desmond Clarke (chief editor of Bean, 8th ed., revised). And that I do consider to be "something compelling". - MPF 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A failing of the ICBN is that, although it specifies certain classes of orthographic errors, it leaves the general category open-ended. IMO any alternate spelling of a name is not an orthographic error unless there is some indication that the author considered it a misspelling, and the examples in Art. 60 tend to bear this out.--Curtis Clark 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to the major taxonomic references accepting the spelling as "Stewartia" Mabberley's The Plant-Book and Heywood's Flowering Plants of the World.  I don't know if these count as "texts with heavy US influence" but once again I have to stress that, however widespread it may be in the U.K., I have not yet found any major taxonomic references that accept the spelling as "Stuartia".  The basic question is whether it is an "error" or "incorrect" to retain the original Linnaean spelling in this particular case; the ICBN seems to give ambiguous or conflicting advice, but the vast majority of botanists, and all of those most qualified to do so, have clearly concluded "no".  MrDarwin 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuartia spelling 

message: Unless and until Kew comes back with something different.  I don't think Wikipedia should be in the place of telling Jianhua Li, Shixiong Yang, and Michael Donoghue, working as a team, that their name usage is incorrect.  If Kew has something different to say, we can debate that issue then, but there is nothing about writing articles for Wikipedia that allows us to supercede the nomenclatural decisions of the leading experts in the field. KP Botany 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not enough that family and genus monographers have accepted the spelling as "Stewartia", I would also note that in the parts of the world where this genus is native--the USA and China--the name is also accepted as "Stewartia" in horticultural, floristic, and taxonomic treatments.  If this is an article about an American and Chinese group of plants, I think the Americans and Chinese opinions should be given the greatest weight with regard to the spelling of the name, as opposed to a region where the plants are only cultivated.  Move back to "Stewartia". MrDarwin 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't even discuss the nomenclature at all. I reckon we should wait until we know what Kew have to say on the matter. Yes, the US and China (and Korea, Japan, etc.) do have an interest as the native origin of the genus, but so does the UK as far as nomenclature is concerned, as the nation of the person whom the genus honours. It would certainly be interesting to hear the views of the Stuart family on the matter. - MPF 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomenclature has been examined and discussed by Spongberg in a monograph of a large part of the genus, who explicitly rejected the arguments of Sprague, and Spongberg's conclusions were accepted by subsequent monographers.  They consider it a settled matter that does not need to be rehashed with every treatment when simply citing Spongberg's monograph will do.  In a nutshell, the original spelling of Linnaean generic names is considered authoritative and correct (especially when Linnaeus himself was consistent in the spelling), and there is a very high hurdle to discard an original spelling.  MPF is also conveniently overlooking the complete text of Art. 60.3, which in stating that they are to be avoided in cases involving the first syllable makes it clear that such "corrections" of original spellings are optional rather than mandatory. MrDarwin 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: MPF, they check the nomenclature before publishing--this was part of my job for a while--I checked the nomenclature of all names before publication.  As these are world-class botanists who have published a monograph on the genus, their use of the name Stewartia trumps your change for now.  No, we should not wait until we hear back from Kew, we can change if Kew differs in a way that requires a Wikipedia change.  For now, for Wikipedia, we have to use established methods, and these include using the published research of experts, not interpreting the codes ourselves and deciding what to do based upon our interpretation of the codes.  We're simply not the experts.  The article must be moved, for now, to Stewartia, and, can be moved back should the need arise.  KP Botany 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've seen an awful lot of papers of this nature, in normally reputable journals, where the nomenclature has manifestly not been checked. Obviously we are not the experts, but I'd trust Kew's nomenclatural lawyers far more than any taxonomist, when it comes to matters of nomenclature (which is of course, a completely separate topic from taxonomy). - MPF 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find, then trust them, AFTER you have asked them.  I'm sure that if you ask them about Donoghue, Li, and Yang, though, that they won't be as dismissive of them as taxonomists, the folks who decide the issues of names, as you are.  And let's make it what I originally said, they have to point to published resources.  KP Botany 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with their taxonomic expertise at all. But that's not the same as nomenclature. - MPF 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where exactly would they publish the orthographic correction if it were to be made?  Hmmmm.....  Just move the article for now, however many more extraneous issues you can raise.  Thanks.  KP Botany 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already been done, as MrDarwin pointed out (Sprague, T. A. (1928). The correct spelling of certain generic names. III. Kew Bulletin 1928: 337-365). - MPF 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I also pointed out, a later correction to that correction has also been published, by Spongberg in 1974.  What MPF still doesn't quite get is that there is no requirement to take up Sprague's correction, nor is there any requirement to reject the original spelling employed by Linnaeus; everything I read in Art. 60 points towards retaining it. MrDarwin 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no requirement to follow Sprague, or Spongberg, surely that contravenes Art. 61.1? "Only one orthographical variant of any one name is treated as validly published". - MPF 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the Code the default is that the original spelling is to be retained.  Yes, there can be only one "correct" orthographic variant and as I've already conceded, a case can be made either way; there is a clear difference of opinion among people who are eminently qualified to decide this.  The problem is that neither you nor I are qualified to say which of those two is the correct spelling, which is why I am deferring to the clear consensus of the Theaceae specialists who have actually worked with, and published on, this genus (particularly those specialists in the regions where the genus is native); the article should likewise defer to them.  Personally, after reading the Code thoroughly, I think it tends to support retaining the original spelling, but it's enough of a gray area that I suspect it will ultimately have to be settled by formal conservation of one spelling over the other. MrDarwin 23:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A far more valid point from Li et al.'s paper is that S. pteropetiolata should (as their evidence clearly points out) be removed from the page to the Hartia page (as H. sinensis). - MPF 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Taxon didn't exist back in 1926. Back in those days, Kew Bulletin (among others) was where such things were published. You can't invalidate Sprague's work for failing to publish in a journal that didn't exist! - MPF 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MPF, it's clear this has nothing to do with the article name any more.  This article should, according to Wikipedia conventions, be at Stewartia.  For some reason or reasons, you have decided that it shouldn't regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and you refuse to move it, or discuss the issue.  The article needs moved.  That's all.  KP Botany 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For now, please return this article to [[Stewartia]] 

message: I've undone the reversion by User:Hardyplants as it lost too much new information that has been added to this article.  The article will have to be carefully edited and moved back to Stewartia, which I simply don't have time to do right now (because all the related species articles which MPF moved to Stuartia names similarly need to be edited & moved).  MrDarwin 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited and moved it.  Please simply check the edits as necessary, rather than reverting. I also changed all of the redirects, except on people's talk pages, and where the common name was used I simply inserted Stewartia|, rather than changing it.  This one cannot be changed, however, without an administrator, Stuartia ovata.  I will post a request for it.  If and when and until we get some sort of publication history from Kew or something changes in the plant taxonomic world, we should stick with the Chinese and American nomenclatural experts on the species and family for its correct name rather than doing our own interpretations of botanical code to decide upon a prefered British common name.  KP Botany 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing a sloppy revert

message: "Since Linnaeus used the same spelling repeatedly from Species 
plantarum, ed. 1 until his death, I don't see that this can reasonably be 
interpreted as an error.  I think that it is more likely that Linnaeus chose 
that spelling for a reason (what reason appears to be lost in time).  
With generic names in particular, I agree with Dan Nicolson that it is 
better to retain the original spelling unless there is a very good 
reason.  I simply don't a very good reason here (perhaps partly because I 
know that Stewart and Stuart were fairly interchangeable in Scotland for 
some centuries).
 
Most of the modern literature that consistently uses the spelling 
"Stuartia" is horticultural.  
 
The modern taxonomic literature including Airy-Shaw, Index Nominum 
Genericorum, and Mabberly all use "Stewartia".  The taxonomic literature 
from the US and from China (where the genus is native) both have used 
Stewartia consistently.  In the US, this includes monographs by Kobuski 
(1951) and Spongberg (1974) and family level analyses by Prince (in 
press) and Stevens et al (in Kubitzki) 2004.  
 
In China, this includes various works by Ye Chuang-xing (1982, 1984, 
1990), Chang Hung-ta, and Ming Tien-lu have used the spelling 
"Stewartia".  Also, the Flora of China (both the Chinese and English versions--the 
latter in draft form) have used that spelling.
 
Cheers,
Anna
 
Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
Botany and Biodiversity Informatics Research
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution"
Let's go with this for now, move the article to Stewartia and let experts duke it out. 
Oh, about Dr. Wietzman, "Dr Anna Weitzman heads the Informatics Branch of the Smithsonian's National Museum of
Natural History. Dr Weitzman has over 25 years experience as a plant taxonomist, specializing
in Theaceae, Ternstroemiaceae, and Bonnetiaceae."
KP Botany 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we made the Taxacom list-serve 

message: In amongst all this controversy, let me point out that the article (at least on the topic of the spelling) is much better than it was a few days ago.  Thanks to  for adding the cite to the Sprague paper and the examples of Stuartia use, thanks to  for adding the recent monographs for Stewartia, and thanks to anyone else who added good information to the article which I might have missed among all the reverts and such in the logs.  My apologies for fanning the flames with words like "dubious" and "joke".  I will plead ignorance (I really had no idea that Stuartia was any more than a pet theory of a single wikipedia editor, who I was unable to identify in the old logs), although like I say I didn't raise the issue as gracefully as I would have liked.  Fortunately we now have the cites, and I will try to WP:Assume good faith in the future.  Kingdon 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kingdon, it was actually I who added the Sprague reference because it was necessary to place the debate into proper context.  I'm not very happy with MPF's latest addition of a single citation from 1889 to suggest that there is more support for the later spelling outside the U.K.; the only references I've been able to find from the past 20 or 30 years that use "Stuartia" have been British.  There may be more, but if so they are few and far between and I think it's fair to say that "Stuartia" is almost exclusively in British usage. MrDarwin 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it to a historical, rather than regional, context (Bean states that Stuartia was "almost universally" used in the 19th century) - MPF 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW for analogous situation, see Albizia, which was later "corrected" to "Albizzia" by Bentham, but was later yet returned to its original spelling, which is now almost unanimously accepted as the correct form.  See Brummit & Taylor 1990, "To correct or not to correct?", Taxon 39: 298-306 9 (who conclude, as I have, that the Code does not provide enough guidance on the matter of when names can or cannot be corrected). MrDarwin 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about Sprague (oops).   I was thinking of the edit   which added 3 other references (which I still am happy for, as we had zero references concerning the Stuartia spelling until that edit).  As for whether the 1889 paper is being given undue weight (or an undue interpretation), I share your concern about that but it didn't strike me as being enough (at least, not by itself) to get all up in arms about (it actually was kind of interesting to me to find at least one reference published before the Sprague paper).  Although dealing with minority viewpoints is always a bit tricky on wikipedia, we need to direct people towards helpful contributions (which in this case probably means that we all should try to find something else to edit at least for the moment), rather than just focusing our energies on smacking down bad edits. Kingdon 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for improving this article