Talk:Corallorhiza
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Preferred spelling
[edit]"Corallorhiza" appears to be more commonly used than "Corallorrhiza." How was the latter determined to be preferred? References to the first spelling are found in Encarta and The American Heritage dictionary references to Coralroot. The only reputable reference with the second spelling is from "The Orchid Lady's Illustrated Encyclopedia." Although in that reference both spellings are given specific author/date references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
- I totally agree. I reverted all occurences of "Corallorrhiza" in the article to "Corallorhiza" (with one r), because this latter is the conserved name. The spelling with 2 r's is listed by the GRIN Database as an alternative spelling only (See [1]). This article needs to be renamed "Corallorhiza" with a redirect from "Corallorrhiza".Oeropium (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corallorrhiza was the original spelling of this very old (1755) name. The more logical spelling of Corallorhiza occurs as early as 1760. Both versions can be found widely scattered throughout the literature. A proposal was made with respect to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to "conserve" the junior synonym, and this was, I think, accepted. (See: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Appendix IIIA, Nomina Generica Conservanda et Rejicienda.) So, Corallorhiza is now the proper spelling if I read the code correctly.
By the way, as far as I know, there is no way to change the article's name. Instead, one must create a new article with the proper spelling, move the information there from the old article, and convert the old one into a redirect. If someone will confirm my interpretation of the Code, I'll be happy to make the needed change. (I'd rather not do so unless we're quite positive about the taxonomy.) Tim Ross·talk 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)- Why not just move it? First Corallorhiza must be deleted.--BerndH (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a problem. I believe the existing "Corallorhiza", which is now a redirect page, can just be used as the new page if we agree on the change. The existing "Corallorrhiza" page can then be used as the needed redirect. Great! No pages need to be added or deleted. Tim Ross·talk 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move completed. ENeville (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a problem. I believe the existing "Corallorhiza", which is now a redirect page, can just be used as the new page if we agree on the change. The existing "Corallorrhiza" page can then be used as the needed redirect. Great! No pages need to be added or deleted. Tim Ross·talk 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just move it? First Corallorhiza must be deleted.--BerndH (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corallorrhiza was the original spelling of this very old (1755) name. The more logical spelling of Corallorhiza occurs as early as 1760. Both versions can be found widely scattered throughout the literature. A proposal was made with respect to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to "conserve" the junior synonym, and this was, I think, accepted. (See: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Appendix IIIA, Nomina Generica Conservanda et Rejicienda.) So, Corallorhiza is now the proper spelling if I read the code correctly.