Diskussion:Gymnocalycium alboareolatum

Korrekter Name

Der korrekte Name ist Gymnocalycium albiareolatum

• Hunt, David R.; Taylor Nigel P., Charles Graham. (2006) (på eng). The new cactus lexicon. Milborne Port: dh books. sid. 126. Libris 10387421. ISBN 0953813444 (complete work)
• Anderson, Edward F (2001) (på eng). The cactus family. Portland, Or.: Timber Press. sid. 348. Libris 6243496. ISBN 0-88192-498-9
• Charles, Graham (2009) (på eng). Gymnocalycium in Habitat and Culture. Graham Charles. sid. 130. ISBN 0956220606

Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 21:56, 28. Feb. 2013 (CET)

Walter Rausch nannte die Art Gymnocalycium alboareolatum. (siehe: Walter Rausch: Nieuwbeschryving: Gymnocalycium alboareolatum Rausch spec. nov. In: Succulenta. Band 64, Nummer 10, 1985, S. 213–214.) Gruß --Succu (Diskussion) 22:45, 28. Feb. 2013 (CET)

Yes, and mistakes has been done before. I have 3 books that has been published after his publication that says otherwise. Usually when you want to describe something white you spell it like albispina, albiflora, albicans, albivenis, albilanata etc. Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 05:15, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Are all these names misspelled?: Orbea albocastanea, Agave albomarginata, Rebutia albopectinata, Leipoldtia alborosea, Stomatium alboroseum, Antimima alborubra, Aloe albostriata, Aloe albovestita and many other not succulent species. --Succu (Diskussion) 08:26, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET) PS: Daiv Freeman of CactiGuide.com writes: „This species is mis-spelled in The Cactus Family as G. albiareolatum.“ --Succu (Diskussion) 08:55, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Ok, bad example. But I can quote from the book Gymnocalycium in Habitat and Culture by Graham Charles published 2009: "First named by Rausch in 1985 as G. alboareolatum Succulenta 64(10) pp213-214 but changed to G. albiareolatum by Huxley in 1992 supposedly to comply with ICBN rules." Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 17:40, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Which ICBN rule was broken? Is there any comment by Anthony Huxley? --Succu (Diskussion) 18:00, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

I don't know which rule was broken, because it doesn't say in the book, but I am working on finding it out :) If you find anyting, let me know :P Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 18:15, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

According to this: The book in question seems to be Anthony Julian Huxley, Mark Griffiths, Margot Levy (Ed.): The New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening. Macmillan Press, 1992. Good luck --Succu (Diskussion) 18:24, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Thank you. I have posted a question to Graham Charles and Dr. Mats Hjertson (no articles about them?), lets see what they have to say. Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 19:36, 1. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Grammatically is albi- the correct form. The albo- variant, which rightfully only should be used in the compositions of Greek words, has been used a very long time (even since ancient times, if I remember correctly), and therefore often accepted. The same phenomenon can you see in many hellatic names beginning with atro- when it really should be atri-. I can't find the exact ruel for the moment. Sorry! Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 20:43, 2. Mär. 2013 (CET)

I can't find a hint to such a rule in Wortelemente lateinisch-griechischer Fachausdrücke in den biologischen Wissenschaften. --Succu (Diskussion) 21:04, 2. Mär. 2013 (CET) PS: But see Recommendation 60G.1.a.3: „Exceptions are common, and one should review earlier usages of a particular compounding form“. --Succu (Diskussion) 21:13, 2. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Yes, but 1985 isn't "early", that's just a clear typo made by someone that didn't mayor in Latin in school, like me. I have made my case. Do what you like and keep the name according to the books and references in German. I have 3 books with the name correct spelled, and you have one reference. I don't have time and effort to convince you :( Christer Johansson (Diskussion) 21:46, 2. Mär. 2013 (CET)

I own two of these books, but I don't think that a Latinum justifies this correction. The mentioned rule is not broken. --Succu (Diskussion) 23:31, 2. Mär. 2013 (CET)