BCSS - Forum

Does anybody know this Cono? I can find the name nowhere but under the Abbey Brook Collection Number list. Is it an accepted name or a varietal name now? Any clues, please!

Conophytum luisae was published by Schwantes in Monatsschr. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 2: 22. 1930.

How did I find out? The answer is to use the International Plant Names Index, which tells you all the names that have ever been published:
http://www.ipni.org/

The simplest way to use it is to start at
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do
and type in the name of the genus you are interested in (like Conpphytum) to get all the plants in that genus, or you can put in a species name and it will give you all its varieties as well as that species itself.

Putting in the genus name is a particularly useful way of proceeding if you want to check spellings of species names.

Actually Conophytum luiseae........an old name from 1957 synonymous with C.bilobum subsp. altum.

I knew you'd know! Many thanks to you both. I found C. bilobum ssp altum 'luisae' on Cono's Paradise lists, but can't find 'luiseae'. Maybe the name changed again?
Edited to add: using the ipni link Ralph gave, only luisae came up.

...and with the reference on IPNI you can look up the original description, since that journal is freely available at the Cactus and Succulent Digital Library, see https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/MDKG/ ... 24.en.html
Interestingly, although Schwantes published it as luisae, he explains at the bottom that it's named after Luise Mayer, meaning he got his Latin a bit wrong: he should've stuck 'ae' to the end of Luise rather than to Luis. This sort of error should be corrected, so luiseae is correct (that's my understanding, anyway). It explains why you encountered both spellings.

ralphrmartin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:49 pmThe simplest way to use it is to start at
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do
and type in the name of the genus you are interested in (like Conpphytum) to get all the plants in that genus, or you can put in a species name and it will give you all its varieties as well as that species itself.

Putting in the genus name is a particularly useful way of proceeding if you want to check spellings of species names.

Another way to interrogate it, that I use loads, would be to put Conophytum in genus and l* or lou* or lu* in the species box - a great time saver when dealing with a big genus.

Phil_SK wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:32 pm ...and with the reference on IPNI you can look up the original description, since that journal is freely available at the Cactus and Succulent Digital Library, see https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/MDKG/ ... 24.en.html
Interestingly, although Schwantes published it as luisae, he explains at the bottom that it's named after Luise Mayer, meaning he got his Latin a bit wrong: he should've stuck 'ae' to the end of Luise rather than to Luis. This sort of error should be corrected, so luiseae is correct (that's my understanding, anyway). It explains why you encountered both spellings.

My understanding is that precedence determines which should be used, therefore luisae, coming first, however wrong linguistically, is correct.

That’s very useful, thanks. I’ve got a few from Abbey Brook, finally I’ll be able to label them correctly.
Peter

conolady wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:36 pmMy understanding is that precedence determines which should be used, therefore luisae, coming first, however wrong linguistically, is correct.

It's not that simple - see 60.1 and 60.8 https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_60.html

Oh, thanks, that's very interesting. I didn't know about that! Complicated, ain't it? But reading it quickly, I agree, luiseae would seem to be correct from all angles. So...are we all thinking the plant should be C. bilobum subsp.altum 'luiseae'? Or...?