TerraForums - Carnivorous Plant Community
Welcome to TerraForums — a long-running carnivorous plant community established in 2001. Register for free to join the conversation, ask questions, and connect with growers from around the world.
Share this page
BigCarnivourKid
It's been one of dem days
That's what popped into my mind when I saw it. D. burmanii
Gold stars to Jim Scott and Dewy for the correct spelling of this species!
definately D. bumanii, I have tons sprouting up with my ceph
Hello William,
I think, the correct spelling of this plant is Drosera burmanni - with only one i. This goes back to a grammar mistake in Vahls descriptions.
Christian
I think, the correct spelling of this plant is Drosera burmanni - with only one i. This goes back to a grammar mistake in Vahls descriptions.
Christian
your in the springs? I think I met you at the flower show, you're the one with all the helis and south african sundews right?
PlantAKiss
Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, Engl
Hi Christian
I hadn't heard that before. I always thought that once something was published, mistake or not, it stood as it was described and published.
Interesting...I always heard 'burmannii' was correct. I guess I need to do some erasing...
I hadn't heard that before. I always thought that once something was published, mistake or not, it stood as it was described and published.
Interesting...I always heard 'burmannii' was correct. I guess I need to do some erasing...
Hi,
On our German Board we were told, that Vahl originally published this species as Drosera burmanni. So, this is the correct name for it.
Christian
On our German Board we were told, that Vahl originally published this species as Drosera burmanni. So, this is the correct name for it.
Christian
BigCarnivourKid
It's been one of dem days
Drosera burmannii is the spelling registered with the ICPS.
N: +[Drosera burmannii {Vahl}]
P: Symbol.3:50 (1794)
T: LK, Burmann s.n. (?C)
CLA: CAR-NEP-DRO-DRO-THE-THE
L: IN, LK, MM, TH, CN, JP, TW, MY, ID (Borneo, Celebes, N.Guin., Java), PG, PW, N & E AU
LFR:
18:
Japan-Korea
.
.
.
136:
Eremaea
XN: 20 {Narasimhachar}
XNP: Proc.Ind.Acad.Sci.Sect.B 29:98 (1949)
ICPS - Drosera burmannii
N: +[Drosera burmannii {Vahl}]
P: Symbol.3:50 (1794)
T: LK, Burmann s.n. (?C)
CLA: CAR-NEP-DRO-DRO-THE-THE
L: IN, LK, MM, TH, CN, JP, TW, MY, ID (Borneo, Celebes, N.Guin., Java), PG, PW, N & E AU
LFR:
18:
Japan-Korea
.
.
.
136:
Eremaea
XN: 20 {Narasimhachar}
XNP: Proc.Ind.Acad.Sci.Sect.B 29:98 (1949)
ICPS - Drosera burmannii
So now it just comes down to who you want to trust...the publisher of the species, or the ICPS? Hmmm, hard choice.
So one mistake one one little paper is causing the fire to fly right now...oh the irony!
Christian, I want to know, if Vahl had published the species, where did he publish it in, and why in the world it get to the ICPS as having two 'i's??
Maybe someone should notify the ICPS.
Jimscott: You are stranger than I thought.
So one mistake one one little paper is causing the fire to fly right now...oh the irony!
Christian, I want to know, if Vahl had published the species, where did he publish it in, and why in the world it get to the ICPS as having two 'i's??
Maybe someone should notify the ICPS.
Jimscott: You are stranger than I thought.
Hi,
We had a similar discussion on our german board lately. Andreas Fleischmann told us, that Vahl published it as Drosera burmanni. This is grammatically not correct (it should be Drosera burmannii if it was correct latin), but this is as it is published and so this name is valid.
The Database is run by Jan Schlauer and shows his view. He can make mistakes as everyone else can do.
Christian
We had a similar discussion on our german board lately. Andreas Fleischmann told us, that Vahl published it as Drosera burmanni. This is grammatically not correct (it should be Drosera burmannii if it was correct latin), but this is as it is published and so this name is valid.
The Database is run by Jan Schlauer and shows his view. He can make mistakes as everyone else can do.
Christian
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Thank you Jason! I'll take it as a compliment.[b said:Quote[/b] (Jason Wong @ May 15 2005,5:28)]Jimscott: You are stranger than I thought.
With regard to the sundew in question, can't we just accept both spellings, since the published version is technically incorrect - yet published? I'm all for correct nomenclature, grammar, and spelling, but it isn't unheard of to have variant, acceptable spellings of the same word. e.g. gage and gauge.