Search for a command to run...
(3048) Stylochiton Lepr. in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., ser. 2, 2: 184. 1834 (‘Stylochæton’) [Angiosp./Ar.], nom., orth. et gen. masc. cons. prop. Typus: S. hypogeus Lepr. (‘hypogeum’). Stylochiton is a not very large genus of about 25 species of (sub)tropical African aroid geophytes whose particular botanical and evolutionary significance may be said to lie in their genus's near “basal” position in the almost entirely monoecious subfamily Aroideae (see, e.g., Haigh & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 110: e16117. 2023). They present features, nearly unique in the subfamily, which accord to greater or lesser degree with aspects of the floret morphology of most of the earlier diverging bisexual-floreted subfamilies, including a perianth-like structure around the pistils and male florets which furthermore have the stamens with distinct thread-like filaments. The spelling and gender of masculine, etymologically correct Stylochiton vs. the original neuter, etymologically erroneous Stylochaeton remain an unresolved source of nomenclatural ambiguity 40 years after a proposal similar to this one (Nicolson & Mayo in Taxon 33: 509. 1984) led to no properly decisive nor linguistically plausible recommendation either way. Leprieur (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 2: 184–186. 1834) established the name with the spelling Stylochaeton and attributed neuter gender to it. He explicitly intended the name to allude, aptly, to an indusium around the style (i.e., the characteristic cupular perigon subtending each pistil) but gave the derivation of the second part of the compound as from “χητον”, a word which, as explained by Nicolson & Mayo (l.c.), does not exist – certainly not in the intended meaning, and whose “eta” should anyway have been transliterated as “e” and not “ae”. Given the clear intended original meaning, it should have been based on the masculine χιτων meaning “tunic”, and transliterated as “chiton” (Nicolson & Mayo, l.c.). Schott (Aroideae: 10, t. 14. 1853; Gen. Aroid.: 68. 1858; Prodr. Syst. Aroid.: 344. 1860) corrected the spelling to Stylochiton but retained its neuter gender. Then, Engler (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 2: 521. 1879) pointed out that both the spelling and gender of Leprieur's name were incorrect and used Stylochiton with masculine epithets. It remained widely used as Schott and then Engler had corrected it for well over a century until Nicolson & Mayo (l.c.) proposed masculine Stylochiton be formally conserved against “neuter” Stylochaeton, essentially to bind Engler's appropriate correction to both the spelling and gender. Apparently inexplicably, their proposal failed 6–5 against (Brummitt in Taxon 36: 736. 1987), with that report stating with peculiar diffidence that “[t]he name for this genus […] should apparently [sic] in future be given as Stylochaeton”, but going on to communicate that the committee had nevertheless voted 6–5 in favour of it being treated as masculine even with the original spelling, though, with further diffidence, adding caveats that “[i]t is debatable […] whether this Committee has the authority to recommend a binding decision on this point [i.e., the gender], and secondly whether the required two-thirds majority (8 positive votes) should apply in this case or only in the conservation issue. [The provision to conserve a name with a particular gender appeared first in the Berlin Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994).] It is suggested [sic] that the 6–5 majority decision on the gender should be accepted.” No reasoning was provided for the outcome and so it is not clear if that conservation proposal failed because some members of the Committee [for Spermatophyta] thought it was simply unnecessary (perhaps considering the case to be a straightforwardly correctable orthographic error), and/or whether and in what way some may have disagreed with its substance. At that time, the General Committee seemed only to deal with proposals recommended for acceptance by specialist committees (cf. Nicolson in Taxon 37: 440. 1988). Consequently, the matter has remained strictly unresolved. Nicolson & Mayo (l.c.) highlighted and itemised the almost entirely consistent use of masculine Stylochiton in taxonomic and floristic accounts from Engler onwards, but it is clear that instability has greatly increased after the Committee's response to their proposal. While floristic and taxonomic literature has largely but not exclusively (e.g., the generic monograph by Mayo & al., Gen. Araceae: 151. 1997, where Stylochaeton is treated as neuter) followed the diffident recommendations in Brummitt (l.c.) in using Stylochaeton with masculine epithets, other fields generally persist with Stylochiton. Searching Google Scholar on each spelling yields some 850 hits in a ratio of approximately 5:3 in favour of Stylochiton [approx. 4:3 when filtered post Brummitt (l.c.) and the same ratio when filtered for 21st Century only]. However, ING (https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/), IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/?q=stylochaeton), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org) and the Naturalis Bioportal (https://bioportal.naturalis.nl/nl) (all accessed 7 Aug 2024), have adopted both the erroneous original spelling and neuter gender, thus following Brummitt (l.c.) on the orthography but not in the matter of gender. Other online databases and virtual herbaria (all accessed 7 Aug 2024), e.g., BM (https://data.nhm.ac.uk), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/2871821), P (https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/list?full_text=stylochaeton), and US (https://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/botany/), treat Stylochaeton as masculine, while the gender is mixed at B (http://ww2.bgbm.org/herbarium/), BR (https://www.botanicalcollections.be/#/en/search/specimen) and JACQ (https://www.jacq.org/#database). Masculine Stylochiton is used at NY (https://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/vh/). Tropicos (https://www.tropicos.org/name/Search) and Global Plants (JSTOR; https://plants.jstor.org) have both spellings, mostly with masculine epithets. Two new species were described last year with neuter epithets in Stylochaeton (Struwig & al. in Phytotaxa 620: 1. 2023). Together, these instances highlight the ongoing want of a firm unambiguous determination or coalescence around a single consensual viewpoint. Based upon masculine Stylochiton being both etymologically correct and in somewhat wider modern use as well as much longer traditional use than Stylochaeton with either gender, we here propose again that masculine Stylochiton with that spelling be formally conserved. Guidelines for proposals such as this ask for counterargument. Given the extent of current instability in this instance, it could be said that any rational unambiguous determination on the orthography and gender of this generic name will be an improvement over the current shambles. One approach would be “originalist”: to determine that Leprieur's neuter Stylochaeton should prevail simply because that is how it was established, regardless of its errors. The second available approach would be to enshrine as firm determinations the rather extensively ignored, unassertive suggestions in Brummitt (l.c.) of masculine Stylochaeton. The third, preferred, approach is to formally conserve the now one and a half centuries-old adoption of masculine Stylochiton as was proposed 40 years ago (Nicolson & Mayo, l.c.). Of these, the recommendation by the Committee for Spermatophyta in 1987 (Brummitt, l.c.) that the spelling be Stylochaeton and the gender be masculine was itself a linguistic error which has served only to compound rather than settle the issue. Nicolson & Mayo (l.c.) had pointed out that the ending, -ον [omicron nu], of the word Leprieur used as the basis for -chaeton, spurious though it was, signified neuter gender, and so that Committee's recommending the retention of the original spelling of the generic name while voting that it be treated as masculine was simply nonsensical from a linguistic point of view. The ending -ων [ōmega nu] from the corrected -chiton, however, is usually masculine and never correctly neuter (cf., for example, masculine Potamogeton). It can be said that, having been treated as masculine since 1879 (Engler, l.c.), masculine is the traditional gender to be retained (cf. Art. 62.1 of the Shenzhen Code, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). However, reverting to the original orthography effectively changes the derivation of the termination requiring a change in the gender – in this case reversion to neuter (cf. Art. 62.2). Choosing between the “originalist” option of etymologically and orthographically spurious neuter Stylochaeton and the long-ago corrected and long-used masculine Stylochiton appears straight-forward: Stylochiton has had far longer continuous majority use, and remains in majority use now. To formalise a reversion to Leprieur's neuter Stylochaeton would be the more disruptive course. The adoption of Stylochaeton by a number of taxonomists, but the ongoing use, regardless of the 40-year-old suggestions in Brummitt (l.c.), of Stylochiton by non-taxonomists, reflects the former's responsiveness and adaptability to recommended orthographic change, and therefore we can reasonably say that formally conserving Stylochiton will hardly traumatise the taxonomic community, but will provide welcome continuity for the non-taxonomic community whom we serve. In the event that this conservation proposal is deemed unnecessary, we request, given the context of decades of confusion and ambiguity imposed since the Committee's insufficiently decisive response to the previous proposal, an explicit determination that the name's orthography (and thence its gender) is to be corrected to masculine Stylochiton under Art. 60.1 of the Shenzhen Code, in order to finally bring stability to this matter.