The correct name of any plant is its genus and its species names.
So you would show Philodendron hederaceum
If you are making a list to show the members of a family
then you would show
Araceae
(indent) Philodendron
(indent, indent) P. hederaceum

terrestrial_man,

Thank you so much. That is exactly what I wanted to know. And what if the plant is a hybrid with a name like 'Gandalf the Grey'? That part would come within the ' ' marks and if initialed would it also have the initial of the genus?

Thanks again!

Abbreviating the genus name should only be done when it can be assumed that the reader knows what genus you are talking about. So, for instance, if you were writing a paper about the genus Philodendron, you might notate the species as P. hederaceum. Unless the reader can easily tell which genus is meant, the full name (genus plus species) should be used.

The family name is a separate thing. It is not needed to identify the exact species. This analogy shouldn't be taken very far, but it's somewhat like adding the word human to someone's name; it's not necessary.

In a table like Terrestrial_man produced above, there is no one way more proper than another. Personally, I would completely leave off the genus name (not even using an initial) in the species listing area of such a table.

Names surrounded by single quote marks should be cultivar names. Sometimes, you will see trade names written that way, but that is improper. I only know of an iris with the cultivar name 'Gandalf the Grey'. That plant would be called Iris 'Gandalf the Grey'. If the reader would be sure to know you were referring to an iris, then you could write I. 'Gandalf the Grey' or just 'Gandalf the Grey'.

This post was edited by brandon7 on Tue, Nov 25, 14 at 18:42

Note that in the example you give hederaceum is not the species name, it is the specific epithet (when naming animals zoologists call this the specific name). The species name is the binomial Philodendron hederaceum. The specific epithet alone has little meaning since there can be other species that share it. If you begin a sentence with the species name you would not abbreviate the genus. It is also customary to include the authority the first time you use a name, i.e. Philodendron hederaceum Schott, unless you first provide a single source you are following for nomenclature.

If I knew the parents of a given hybrid I would include that information to inform the reader. Unfortunately for many cultivated plants that information is lacking.

When the genus name is evident to the reader or listener, it is common practice (even in formal scientific literature) to represent the species with only the specific epithet. Some writers may prefer to throw in the abbreviation, as we discussed above, but that is not more correct or even common than the alternative (especially when discussing a single genus). When speaking (where an abbreviated genus name is not practical), it would often be quite awkward to always use the full species name.

The recommendation not to begin a sentence with an abbreviation (or number) is a stylistic one and not a requirement of the ICBN or the ICNCP. (or should I say, "ICBN and ICNCP standards to not require full species names to be used at the beginning of sentences."- sorry, couldn't resist.)

Usage in conversation is one thing, but I have never seen an author use only the specific epithet in a peer reviewed paper. It certainly isn't common practice.

I see it quite a bit, especially where two or three members of the same genus are being discussed. Using the an abbreviation for the genus is a little more formal (maybe, "less sloppy"), but is also a little more cumbersome. It may be a good idea to always include even the full genus name, when writing, but I wouldn't say someone was wrong to use an abbreviation or even leave off the genus, in cases where it could easily be inferred by the reader.

Thank you everyone for your input. It has been very helpful.

My reason for asking about such things is that I recently inherited a group of plants and a list thereof and I am trying to update the list to be more modern. The list is dated 1984 and looking around online I can see that it is somewhat outdated. So I have been trying to figure out what is more professional and what is more modern when it comes to listing plants. (It's easier when you buy a plant with a modern label.)

For example, a section on the original list might read

Aizoaceae
- Carruanthus caninus
- Lithops
-- aucampiae v. fluminalis
-- bromfieldii v. glaudinae
-- dinteri v. frederici C.180
-- dinteri v. multipunctata
-- dorotheae

(just to pick a random group on the front page).

Looking around online, I see so much stuff about author's names, synonyms, and so on and I find that a lot of the information conflicts (or seems to) so that I can seldom tell for sure if I have made the list any better by "updating" it or if I've only made it worse. Using my above example, I have rewritten the list this way:

Aizoaceae
- Carruanthus ringens (L.) Boom (C. caninus (Lam.) Schwantes)
- Lithops
-- L. aucampiae var. fluminalis Cole
-- L. bromfieldii var. glaudinae Cole
-- L. dinteri var. frederici Cole C.180
-- L. dinteri var. multipunctata de Boer
-- L. dorotheae Nel

Here I have attempted to update the epithet of each (where necessary) and to include the author's names. It confuses at times, however. For example Cole seems to mean more than one person with that same last name depending what web site you look at. Is the author name always necessary and, if so, where exactly in the whole name is it supposed to go? Sometimes I see a name come before "var." and other times only at the end of the whole name. Other times still it comes in both places so that names appear in two different spots.

By the way, the sites I have been using the most are http://www.theplantlist.org and http://www.tropicos.org. I've also made some use of Wikipedia but I do not trust it as much.

If anyone has any criticism of my alterations to the list or any additional advice, I welcome any input that will help me be more professional in my list. Thank you again. It is maddening trying to figure all of this out on my own.

P. S. If there are any mistakes in my revised, list they are not intentional. I am copying and pasting out of my Latex PDF file and my computer doesnâÂÂt always cooperate.

This post was edited by Reuel on Mon, Dec 8, 14 at 16:50

Both the Plant List and Tropicos should be reliable sources for accepted names. It appears the Plant List is a collaboration between Kew and the Missouri Botanical Garden, the latter of which is responsible for Tropicos. It is a good idea to avoid Wikipedia because it contains many errors.

Note that the authority for a variety or subspecies can be different from that of the species. Using one of your names (L. aucampiae var. fluminalis Cole) as an example, the full entry could be

Lithops aucampiae L. Bolus var. fluminalis Cole

Tropicos only shows the author L. Bolus when you are looking at the page for Lithops aucampiae. The variety fluminalis was named by a separate author, in this case Cole.

While this may seem overly nitpicky, there is a logic to writing names this way. Some names have been misapplied in the past (i.e. used more than once for different species) and including the author citation tells the reader that the name you are using is for the taxon as it was applied by that authority.

Regarding names applying to more than one author, that shouldn't be the case. Author abbreviations should be unique, for example L. refers only to Carl Linnaeus. If a source is using the abbreviation Cole to refer to more than one author then it probably isn't following the Inernational Plant Names Index (www.ipni.org). According to the IPNI Cole is the abbreviation for John Rufus Cole. The standard abbreviation for Desmond Thorne Cole is D.T. Cole.

I agree with everything in Lycopus's last post (very good explanations, BTW). I'll add just a few things...

The Plant List may well be the, or at least one of the best single sources for accepted names of a wide variety of plants. However, sometimes you may be able to find a cutting edge researcher/expert for a particular group of plants with even more up-to-date information. That is one advantage of Wikipedia; although the information may not always be highly reliable, it can often be cutting edge (an up-to-date, by-specialist source). I frequently check with Wikipedia for ideas or input, realizing that the information must be fully vetted before I use it. You really just have to do your research to decide which sources are more trustworthy. Often, with just a little digging, the validity of various sources becomes much more apparent.

As for whether names are "needed" for your work, I would first want to know more about the nature of your work. In other words, it's purpose and scope. I completely agree with Lycopus's reasoning for why to include the names, but believe the necessity or even logic for your use, may depend on the circumstances. For instance, if you are depending on a previous ID that does not include an authority, your adding that authority may or may not be clarifying anything. The original ID, as well as your understanding/interpretation of that ID, would have to be considered.

BTW, I am impressed by the way you are researching all of this. It seems you have come a long way already! I would encourage you not to depend much on "modern labels" found on plants in the trade these days. It's amazing how few plants are really properly ID'd at most nurseries (and especially at the big-box stores).

You may already have figured this out, but the "C.180" in the above list refers to a field collection number. This number would have been given to the specimen, at the time it was collected, for tracking purposes, in this case by D.T. Cole.

You guys are a lot more informative and encouraging than a lot of other people I have met on a lot of other forums. I appreciate it.

In taking your advice, here is another example to see if I am getting it right. A plant originally labelled as

Acanthaceae Fittonia verschaffeltii argyroneura minor,

with a note that its common name is "Mosaic Plant", would be, according to The Plant List, better labelled Fittonia albivenis with the citation (Lindl. ex Veitch) Brummitt. Therefore one would write

Acanthaceae Fittonia albivenis (Lindl. ex Veitch) Brummitt.

If I wished to keep the original name then Tropicos suggests that the Latin binomial would be written as Fittonia verschaffeltii (Lem.) Van Houtte while the second part would be labelled var. argyroneura (Coem.) Regel to produce the name

Acanthaceae Fittonia verschaffeltii (Lem.) Van Houtte var. argyroneura (Coem.) Regel minor

If including BOTH (Lem.) Van Houtte and (Coem.) Regel is important then why does Tropicos not do that in the lists shown here?

http://www.tropicos.org/Name/103071?tab=synonyms

I am really concerned with making sure I get the name as accurate as I can so thank you in advance.

As for my uses, this list is just for me but I want it to be as "academic" as possible, as if I were going to publish it. I tend toward being a perfectionist in my projects though I am getting the idea that this list will always have room for subtle improvements.

This post was edited by Reuel on Tue, Dec 9, 14 at 8:45

Should the chicken be eaten with the fingers?

No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Love_the_yard, what in the heck are you talking about??????