The term orthography, as used in botanical nomenclature, refers to the spelling and grammatical form of the Latin scientific names of plants. In keeping with the principle that each taxonomically defined group (a family, genus, species, etc.) ought to have only one "correct" Latin name, it is logical that each name ought to have only one "correct" spelling. In fact, however, the botanical literature contains a multiplicity of variant or alternative spellings, even for some of our most common plants. Examples are the genus of California poppy, spelled Eschscholtzia or Eschscholzia; skunk-cabbage, spelled Lysichitum or Lysichiton; false-dandelion, spelled Hypochoeris or Hypochaeris; death camas, spelled Zygadenus or Zigadenus, and wild-hollyhock, spelled Sidalcea malvaeflora or malviflora. In all these cases, the latter spelling is correct, according to the 2000 edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), which devotes fully nine pages to its rules and recommendations dealing with orthography.
The nomenclatural rules given by ICBN are retroactive to 1753 (the date of Linnaeus' Species Plantarum) and provide that "(t)he original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typo- graphical or orthographical errors…" (emphasis added). This apparently straightforward rule (to retain the spelling used by the original publishing author) is unfortunately open to disagreement on what con- stitutes a "typographical or orthographical error." I will illustrate this problem with an example from the genus Montia (Portulacaceae), involving an important but seldom mentioned historical figure in northwest American botanical exploration.
Adelbert von Chamisso (1781-1838) was the naturalist aboard the Russian exploring ship "Rurick," which visited Alaska and California in 1816 under the command of Lieut. Otto von Kotzebue. Chamisso is best known for his discovery of the California poppy, Eschscholzia californica, which he named in honor of J. F. Eschscholtz, the ship's surgeon and entomologist. In publishing this genus, Chamisso omitted the "t" from Eschscholtz's name, but as there is no evidence this was a "typographical error" (he used the same spelling in later publications), we must retain his original name Eschscholzia! This illustrates the minute details and ambiguities of orthography, which can be highly annoying to taxonomists who try to follow the rules and stabilize the Latin names of plants. Another spelling oddity involving Chamisso is the name Camissonia, a large genus of western North American Onagraceae. It was published in his honor by J. H. F. Link in 1818, but spelled without an "h" (perhaps to preserve the soft Italianate pronunciation of "C" rather than the hard K-sound of the Latin "Ch"). Chamisso also named several other western American genera to commemorate his botanical contemporaries, including Lessingia (Asteraceae), Horkelia (Rosaceae), and Romanzoffia (Hydrophyllaceae)—although the latter name honors Count Nikolai Romanzoff, the wealthy Russian sponsor of the "Rurick" expedition, rather than a botanist.
The problem of orthography in Montia that caught my attention involves the species M. chamissoi (Ledeb. ex Spreng.) Greene (familiarly known as toad-lily), which was first published in 1825 as Claytonia chamissoi by Sprengel. In 1831, Chamisso himself (who had collected the plant at Unalaska in 1816) ignored "chamissoi" and published the spelling as Claytonia chamissonis. This latter species epithet is almost always used in plant names honoring Chamisso; examples include Stachys chamissonis (hedge-nettle) of coastal California, Ambrosia chamissonis (silver burweed) of West Coast beaches, and Arnica chamissonis (leafy arnica), widespread in western North America. My reaction was: "If Chamisso himself disapproved of the spelling chamissoi, there must be something wrong with it." I wondered whether chamissoi might be an orthographic error based on an incorrect latinization of Chamisso's name. If so, it would be permissible to correct the spelling to chamissonis, as Chamisso and other 19th century authors (including John Torrey, Asa Gray, Sereno Watson, and Edward Lee Greene) had done.
How personal names can be latinized into scientific names is explained in an excellent article by Dan H. Nicolson (Taxon 23:549-561. 1974). Names ending in the letter _o have been treated in several different ways by past botanical authors. According to ICBN, it is correct to form the possessive case simply by adding the letter _i after the terminal _o as Sprengel had done ("chamissoi"). However, it was common in the early days of taxonomy to treat personal names ending in _o as being Latin nouns in the Third Declension, taking the possessive ending _nis (hence "chamissonis"). A third form of Latinization also was used, which involved combining the Third Declension stem, ending in _n—, with regular Second Declension endings such as _ii and _ia. This seems to be how the generic name Camissonia was derived. I wrote to Dr. Nicolson and asked him whether the modern ICBN rules dictate that any name containing the epithet chamissonis is an "orthographic error," which must be corrected to chamissoi. He replied that, luckily, the stem-augmenting letter _n— represents an "intentional latinization," producing the exceptional but permissible genitive form chamissonis. Given the intricate legalisms of ICBN, it is fortunate that its rules do allow us to use these three alternative latinizations of Chamisso's name.
In a later article I will discuss further the scientific contributions of Adelbert von Chamisso, hoping to give a glimpse, as well, into the personality of this energetic and talented botanist.