Talk:Abroma augustum

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abroma augustum → Abroma augusta – Latin consistency and the only (undead) reference calls it that. 'Augustum' has all the appearance of being made up Itc editor2 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Google has almost 22,000 hits for abroma augusta and 4,000 for abroma augustum Itc editor2 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've had an off-wiki discussion about this with Noetica. This is the outcome:

The linguistic issues:

• 1. Two adjectives are to be distinguished: augustus ("august, majestic"); angustus ("narrow, small"). The latter is far more used in botanical nomenclature, often in combined forms like "angustifolia" ("narrow-leaved"). But the two are often confused. Editorial or scribal errors are frequent.

• 2. "Abroma" is based on the Greek word "broma" ("food"). It means "not food, inedible". It is a neuter noun, even when taken into Latin; so the proper form of the adjective can only be neuter: augustum or angustum.

On linguistic and descriptive grounds alone, the correct term would be "Abroma angustum" (capped like that). This occurs in the literature, but is overwhelmed by the doubly illiterate form "Abroma augusta": ngrams

Other issues:

• 3. The linguistic issues are complicated by their historical embedding. Something of the history is laid out here, but this source is not itself free of confusion: link (no explicit distinction is made between "ang-" and "aug-" forms, and they both occur on the page).

• 4. There is an authoritative resource for this nest of difficulties: [1]. This page rather indirectly points to "Abroma augustum" as the well-regimented form, ignoring one of the linguistic and descriptive facts (which favour "ang-"). It also catalogues further confusions for this taxon: Malvaceae Abroma augustum (L.) L.f. ... orthographic variant: Abroma angusta orth. var. Murray APC [Australian Plant Census] Comment: A widespread tropical taxon, misapplied by various authors (e.g. R.Kanehira & S.Hatusima, Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 55: 389 (1941)) to Australian material of Abroma molle DC.

The page conveniently lists related names.

• 5. The same resource lists this name, at a separate page: Malvaceae Theobroma augusta L. here. This is equally ill-formed linguistically; but the practically useful data are that links from here are to "aug-" forms, not "ang-" forms – and to "-um" forms, not "-a" forms. Only to "augustum" and "fastuosum".

Conclusion and recommendation: The article's title should be kept at "Abroma augustum", in spite of the impression given by the ngram evidence. The most reliable sources favour "augustum". Unfortunately the standard reliable sources are themselves ignorant concerning "aug-" and "ang-". There should be a brief note explaining the four-way variation (2 × 2: aug/ang × um/a), in the very first note – linked at the first sentence of the lead.

Tony (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Nice research, Tony. Let's be careful though not rely on our own linguistic and descriptive views to determine Wikipedia content, lest we get into OR territory. Just to throw a great big monkey wrench in the works, I propose we consider the possibility that none of the above names are correct per some very reliable sources. The most-often cited authority, by far, for the original correct publication of this species is by Carl Linnaeus the Younger (L.f.) in his Supplementum Plantarum. If you look at the actual text by L.f. (pdf here) on pages 54 & 341, you see that he actually published it as "Ambroma", not "Abroma" unlike Jacquin who invalidly published Abroma 5 years before him. The only author I found who actually addressed all the relevant points, including the aug/ang forms, is F.R. Fosberg, in "Critical Notes on Pacific Island Plants", published in Micronesica 2: 150. 1966. He makes a very persuasive case for Ambroma. His paper is cited as correct (with discussion) by an extremely reputable source in volume 12 of The Flora of China. Ambroma is also getting nice coverage on Google scholar in the decades after that paper. (remember that hit-count comparisons is not a valid way to determine a correct botanical name, even on Wikipedia)

On the question of the neuter-noun ending (augusta vs. augustum, the ICN says

32.2. Names or epithets published with an improper Latin termination but otherwise in accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published; they are to be changed to accord with Art. 16–19, 21, 23, and 24, without change of the author citation or date (see also Art. 60.12).

Hence it is valid for modern sources like Flora of China to change the name published as Ambroma augusta to Ambroma augustum without republication or changing the author citation. I propose our article name to be Ambroma augustum. Do you guys think Fosberg's article would make a nice source to begin a Taxonomy section for our article? It nicely shows the history from L. to Jacq. to L.f. to Murray's erroneous intro of the "ang" prefix. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica has composed this response, Tom:

Tom is right about several things, of course. But I would argue against the form "Ambroma augustum" as an article title. The form "Ambroma" is nothing at all in Latin or Greek. If anything, it suggests poor Greek on the part of Linnaeus filius; very likely a confusion with forms like "ambrosia" ("food of the immortals", cf. "ambrotos", "immortal", etc.) – a supposition borne out by the associated name "Theobroma" ("food of the gods", but with relation to the form "broma", not the "bro" element in "ambrosia"). There is therefore no way or reason to "correct" the gender of the adjective. That is, there would be no reason to "correct" L.f.'s form at all if we accept "Ambroma" as the name of the genus.

While the Angst over "ang-" versus "aug-" is not a matter of live dispute, I would have it on record that the case is not settled. Study the marginal "a~gusta" in Tom's L.f. pdf, at mid-page on p. 341 (original pagination). Why should my "~" not be read as "n" rather than "u"? I may just now have located the ultimate source of that misunderstanding, right? From before the time of L.f. (indeed, even for ancient authors and ancient errors in citation) till now, authors, scribes, printers, editors, scanning software, and all manner of intermediaries have mixed up "u" and "n" – especially in Latin texts. Does any form occur in L.f. with "A[m]broma a~gust*" in proper sequence? Please point me to that! Indeed, to any relevant evidence in L.f. beyond that marginal, disconnected "-a" form (which could be read as a plural corresponding to a singular neuter "-um"). So far we have no evidence in L.f. that he even wanted a "*gusta" form in that canonic position, and not a "*gustum" form. Are people carelessly heeding instead the separate and genuine error that immediately follows: "Theobroma augusta" (not "-um")? It at least has a historically justified "aug-", by the way. And look! The very next small paragraph has "Ambroma fastuosum", with the correct neuter "-um".

A bias would have operated from the start against what nevertheless remains the more common adjective in plant names: "angust*" forms (more descriptive of plant structures) as opposed to "august*" forms (more common in non-specialist use). This must be borne in mind when Google records are analysed, especially.

And "analysed" is the operative verb. Of course undigested Google counts are very deceptive. Tom has, I fear, fallen into their use just as the proposer of the RM has. A far more accurate use of Google Scholar follows. I have used quote marks to force strict searching, and "|" for multiple alternative additions to the base term:

• "abroma" ("augusta" | "angusta" | "augustum" | "angustum") since 2009: 270 genuine hits
• "ambroma" ("augusta" | "angusta" | "augustum" | "angustum") since 2009: 18 genuine hits (<7% of the count for "abroma")

And indeed, there are no hits at all on Google ngrams for the single term "ambroma". It has had little currency, was probably a mistake due to ignorance even at the start (see p. 341 of the L.f. text Tom points us to, where "Ambroma" arises in the immediate vicinity of "Theobroma" and is plainly infected by it semantically for the author). I stand by the present title as the best available compromise in a messed-up situation that has persisted for over two centuries. The weight of judgements from Google Scholar in the last four years ought to count for something, along with the evidence cited in favour of "Abroma augustum" above (supplemented by Tom's notes about the propriety of correcting Latin terminations).

Tony (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please thank Noetica for his response. He makes some great points! However, his first concerns about the generic form of Ambroma not making sense in Latin or Greek are irrelevant. There is no such requirement. They may be from any source and do not require a meaningful word (some are even anagrams of other words, e.g. the genus Ifloga). From the ICN:

"20.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, or a word treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter (see Art. 60.2). It may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner, but it must not end in -virus."

"51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known, or because it has lost its original meaning."

So the generic name (Ambroma, Abroma, Theobroma) & epithet (angusta, augusta, augustum, etc.) are 2 separate issues here. It still looks like Ambroma was a validly published generic name as Fosberg states. Since my Latin is virtually useless, I fully accept his point that "Ambroma" does not have a common gender form and is therefore not correctable. Next point, on the ang/aug prefix, he's right!! The published name per L.f. is actually Ambroma angusta. I think both I and others like Fosberg missed that because of the similar Theobroma augusta right next to it. Perhaps we were also fooled because it is not normal to change the species epithet just because the generic name needs changing. Next point, proper sequence in publishing Ambroma angusta by L.f is not a concern; as the typography & arrangement make it very clear which is the generic & which is specific name. Many, many other plants are published this way in this epic, oft-cited source. Carl Linnaeus himself used this method. Next, there is no error, as Noetica says, of L.f. incorrectly citing L. as using Theobroma augusta, instead of the "-um" form that is commonly cited. If you look at the real text, L. did actually use Theobroma augusta, and L.f. is correctly (correct for that era) citing it as a basionym of his new combination Ambroma angusta; so no error there. When he says that the very next paragraph has "Ambroma fastuosum" (with the -um suffix), please note that this is completely irrelevant, it was merely the personal choice of Jacq., who almost all modern sources agree did not validly publish that name. Next point, I have absolutely not fallen into the trap of using Google counts, I agree they are deceptive, but more importantly, not the proper way to decide on a botanical name (that's for common names & slang). I did not cite counts or numbers, or compare hitcounts. I was only pointing out that there was some traffic in scholarly sources for that name; showing that it was at least worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps a new proposal? How about we delay our name change until we write a Taxonomy section for the article? Once we lay all this out with detailed explanations, history, links to original documents & modern sources, etc... I think the right name for our article title will pop out at us like a neon sign. What do you think? --Tom Hulse (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move as per Tony's points. As nicely summarized by IPNI, Linnaeus f. made a typo in the genus name when he moved Theobroma augusta to Jacquin's genus Abroma, and failed to alter the specific epithet to agree with the gender that had been established by Abroma fastuosum Jacq. Gender errors are "to be corrected". Abroma augusta should redirect to Abroma augustum as is currently the case. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if you accept Jacq.'s Abroma as a valid genus nova. But what do you think of some, like Fosberg above, who say it was illegitimate? Honestly, I'm not sure I am properly understanding the point Fosberg is trying to make as to why Jacq. would be illegitimate. Noetica pointed me to a link that says Fosberg is wrong, but no with no explanation. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some indications that the genus is valid and legitimate, for example, ING lists it with a [C] preceding the entry, which means that it is in Names in Current Use for Extant Plant Genera (Greuter et al., 1993). The core of Fosberg's argument seems to be that Jacquin's "treatment of the species cannot be accepted as combined generico-specific description, as he cites Theobroma augusta L. in synonymy, making his Abroma fastuosa not a new species but a renaming of an old one." I'm not sure what is going on there. Article 38.5 stipulates that a descriptio generico-specifica can only be construed if "no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type". I'm flummoxed. Perhaps the genus isn't valid. I'm convinced that it has neuter gender, though. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, we should not be deciding what name is or is not "corrected". The Plant List currently gives Abroma augusta as the accepted name, citing Kew (in review). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what a mess. Nicolson, D.H. (1994). "Gender of Generic Names, Particularly Those Ending in -ma, in the 'Names in Current Use' List". Taxon. 43 (1): 97–107. doi:10.2307/1223468. states that

• generic names ending in -broma referring to food are neuter, from Greek brôma, e.g., Abroma, Theobroma
• generic names ending in -broma referring to poison are feminine, from masculine Greek bromos, e.g., Hippobroma

TPL should be taken with a grain of salt, I think. It seems that both pater and filius Linnaeus had the gender of Theobroma wrong, and Abroma is merely inedible, not actually poisonous. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm all in favour of keeping up the standards of botanical Latin! So I agree that the article should be kept at the title it has, but we should (a) acknowledge that WCSP in review (TPL just aggregates information) at present accepts augusta (b) watch to see what happens when the family moves out of review in WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, what do you think if Fosberg's contention that Jacq. did not validly publish Abroma? Someone like him, that discusses the most detailed taxonomy issues around a name, and whom is referenced by major important authors like Flora of China & databases like APNI & IPNI, holds much more weight than the fast-and-loose lists that try to cover all plant names (without the resources to do it).

When The Plant List claims "WCSP in review", what that really means is it's just a family that is not covered by them, so they just plug in exactly what IPNI has in the meantime, they're not a real authority at all, and they didn't necessarily put any work into researching it. You can see them exactly duplicate the IPNI errors, for instance, L.f. never published anywhere an Abroma augustum or Ambroma augustu as they claim. You can read the text yourself and see he used Ambroma angustu (as Murray verified).

To me, the trouble seems to be that everyone has glaring errors in either the generic or species name (especially the databases like GRIN, Tropicos, IPNI, The Plant List, etc). If we decide to stay at this article title (I'm not objecting even though it's probably wrong), then we can't really have an author citation, since it would be fibbing to use any of the usual combinations like L. (L.f.). I'm not sure what to do. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I don't accept that L.f. published anything other than Abroma augusta. Look again at the link you gave. The scan of the bold text in the margin isn't clear but I read it as "augusta ABROMA"; that this is intended is clear from the synonym given which is unmistakably "Theobroma augusta".

My experience is that both WCSP and IPNI are very keen to correct errors; I've found Govaerts at WCSP especially helpful in explaining why they made particular taxonomic choices. The entry "WCSP (in review)" in TPL means just that – the information came from a not yet public WCSP database. So I suspect there are good reasons for the choice of the "a" ending, but we can't really do much more until it appears in WCSP itself. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 02:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.