(2789) Pomaderris kumarahou A. Cunn. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 3: 248. Jun 1839 (‘kumeraho') [Angiosp.: Rhamn.], nom. & orth. cons. prop.

Typus: [New Zealand, North Island, Bay of Islands] Keri‐Keri, at head of boat navigation, Sep 1826, A. Cunningham 36/58 No. 577 (K barcode K000732063; isotypi: FI barcode FI006698, KW barcode KW001003127).

The name Pomaderris kumeraho was first published by Fenzl (in Endlicher, Enum. Pl.: 21. 1837), who attributed it to Allan Cunningham (“P. Kumeraho All. Cunningh. msc.”). However, the name was listed in the synonymy of P. elliptica Labill. (Nov. Holl. Pl. 1: 61, t. 86. 1805) var. elliptica and because of that it was not validly published until 1839, when A. Cunningham (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 3: 248. 1839) accepted that name for a New Zealand (North Island) species and provided its full description, geographical information, and comments.

The name P. kumeraho is currently accepted for a New Zealand (North Island endemic) species related to the Australian (Tasmanian) P. elliptica but distinct from the latter (Moore in Allan, Fl. New Zealand 1: 419. 1961; Moore in Tane 31: 140. 1986; Walsh & Coates in Muelleria 10: 29. 1997; de Lange & Rolfe, New Zealand Indig. Vasc. Pl. Checkl.: 95. 2010; Schönberger & al., Checkl. New Zealand Fl. – Seed Pl. 2019: 157. 2019, https://doi.org/10.26065/s3gg-v336; Plants of the World Online, 2020–: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:718018‐1; Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa – New Zealand Pl. Database: https://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?NameID=3CA4223A-4261-4624-96E9-66246C968285 [all online resources here and below accessed 14 Aug 2020]). The name was lectotypified by Moore (l.c. 1961) by the Allan Cunningham specimen cited above. Moore cited the Kew specimen as “K, No. 577 Keri‐Keri Mission Station, R.C., 1834”, but, judging from the original tag (“58” and “1826”) most closely associated with it, the one Kew specimen represents, in fact, the other syntype, that collected by Allan Cunningham in 1826. The specimen was donated to Kew in 1862 by Cunningham's friend and biographer, Robert Heward, who inherited and distributed most of Cunningham's personal herbarium (see Orchard in Telopea 17: 43–86. 2014). Either Heward or Cunningham, himself, labelled under “No. 577” (Cunningham's published species number in his Florae insularum Novae Zelandiae precursor) all the collection information associated with P. kumarahou (including the etymological comment most probably reproduced from the original note made by Richard Cunningham in 1833 or 1834). Images of the lectotype are at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000732063 and https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000732063, and of the isolectotype at the Museo di Storia Naturale dell'Università di Firenze (Florence, Italy) at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.fi006698.

For the species epithet, Allan Cunningham (l.c.) took the Māori name, as registered by his brother Richard (“Kumeraho nom. vernaculum. R. Cunningham”), and provided the following explanation in the protologue: “The flowering of this shrub, which takes place in the month of September, the spring of New Zealand, is the signal for the natives to plant their Koomeras or sweet potatoes; hence doubtless originates the name by which they call this plant in the present day.” As there was then no written Māori language, he would have taken it as he heard it or as his brother Richard heard it when the type material was collected in 1826 and 1833–1834, so in the protologue, the epithet was spelt as ‘kumeraho'. In the Māori language (Te Reo Māori), the proper name of this species of Pomaderris is kūmarahou (Māori Dictionary online: https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3250), while in New Zealand English, it is also called gumdigger's soap or golden tainui. It is believed that the name kūmarahou is indeed related to the word kūmara (https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3249), meaning sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Tabl. Encycl. 1: 465. 1793), with the adjectival suffix “hou”, meaning “new”, as was suggested by Cunningham in the protologue (see also Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga – Māori Plant Use Database: http://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz, record ID number 1138).

Unfortunately, as was noticed and indicated by one of the authors (Te Ahu Rei), the original and currently accepted spelling kumeraho is contextually an offensive term in Te Reo Māori, since kume is a verb meaning to pull, drag, slide, pull out, stretch, extend, and raho refers to human genitalia, in combination creating an indecent and explicit meaning. Thus, Te Ahu Rei proposed to explore possibilities for changing the epithet so that it corresponded to the correct local name, as Cunningham clearly had intended, and so avoiding the offensive pejorative allusions of the current spelling.

Articles 60.1 and 60.3 and the voted Examples 6 and 10 of Art. 60 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) should be considered in our case. In our opinion, the option of correcting the epithet according to relevant provisions of Art. 60 is not applicable here because it will be against Art. 60.3. Also, the original spelling of the protologue cannot be considered a typographical or orthographical error; it was the intended spelling because both Allan and Richard Cunningham consistently used that spelling in their manuscripts (see Fenzl, l.c.) and on herbarium labels (specimens in K and KW, see above); the specimen KW001003127 recently discovered in the Turczaninow historical herbarium at KW has an original label with the etymological notes by Richard Cunningham closely matching the protologue. Moreover, the first Māori dictionary was published in 1844, while Allan Cunningham collected the species in 1826 and Richard Cunningham in 1833 and/or 1834, so Allan Cunningham in publishing the original spelling (as defined by Art. 60.2) of the epithet in 1839 evidently relied only on his notes and records of his brother, all based on oral sources. Also, if this epithet is “automatically corrected”, it may create a precedent for a chain of similar unjustified “corrections” of numerous plant names (generic names and/or species or infraspecific epithets) based on corrupt or erroneous local names of plants. Most of the scientific (Latin/Latinized) plant names based on “corrupt” or “misspelt” (or even intentionally Latinized) local/native names do not need such “corrections”. Otherwise, one should insist, for example, on changing the currently accepted name Cibotium barometz (L.) J. Sm. (in London J. Bot. 1: 437. 1842; based on Polypodium barometz L., Sp. Pl.: 1092. 1753) because its epithet is almost certainly the misspelt Russian word “baranets” (Cyrillric spelling “баранец”, meaning “little male lamb” or “little ram”, referring to the mythical “Vegetable Lamb of Tartary” or “Scythian Lamb”: see Tryon in Amer. Fern J. 47: 1–7. 1957; Appleby in Notes & Rec. Roy. Soc. London 51: 23–34. 1997, and references therein), and indeed, the “corrected” epithet “baranetz” was used by Christ (in Philipp. J. Sci., C 2: 117–118. 1907) and by some other authors. Many other similar examples can be added.

Evidently, the offensiveness of a Latin or Latinized name in some other language is not a general reason for its automatic correction, unless that name is a true typographical or orthographical error to be corrected according to Art. 60.1 of the ICN. Also, a “legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known” (Art. 51.1). However, in the present case, we are dealing with an inadvertent corruption of the vernacular name used by the Indigenous people in Te Reo Māori, which resulted in a very different meaning of the epithet in that language. Since that meaning in Te Reo Māori turned out to be indecent and offensive, we think it advisable to use in that case the ad hoc approach and to change the epithet by conserving the name with the conserved spelling corresponding to the actual local name of the plant. Numerous Māori names were used as generic names and/or epithets in scientific names of plants, fungi and animals (see an overview and list by Veale & al. in New Zealand J. Ecol. 43: art. 3388. 2019; also Whaanga & al. in J. Mar. Island Cult. 2: 78–84. 2013), which reflects researchers' interest in, and respect to, the local knowledge and cultures. Many of such names were transliterated or Latinized very close to the original, and some with considerable deviations from the original. However, in contrast to the case of the Pomaderris epithet considered here, we are not aware of any other Te Reo names used as epithets that have been deemed offensive and unacceptable by Māori, so we expect that the proposed conservation will not create a precedent for additional similar proposals.

With the growing awareness and interest in national heritage, including aspects related to local natural history knowledge, increasingly more and more Māori people are becoming aware of the scientific names of plants inhabiting Aotearoa/New Zealand, and an encounter with the currently accepted spelling of the epithet of the Pomaderris species locally known as kūmarahou can surely be disappointing and considered indecent and offensive. Moreover, that species is also culturally important in Aotearoa/New Zealand as an ornamental and medicinal plant, especially in the traditional healing system known as Rongoā Māori (see Brooker & Cooper in Econ. Bot. 15: 6. 1961; Cambie in J. Roy. Soc. New Zealand 6: 321. 1976; Brooker & al. in Econ. Bot. 43: 95. 1989; Riley, Māori Healing & Herbal. 1994; Māori Pl. Use Database, l.c., and references therein). However, its use outside New Zealand is limited, so the proposed change in orthography will only minimally affect the users of the scientific name of the plant worldwide.

Considering the above arguments, especially the inadvertent but evident offensiveness (as perceived by Māori people) of the epithet in its original spelling, we propose to conserve the name Pomaderris kumarahou with that spelling (Art. 14.11), which properly reflects the common Māori name of the plant, as it was almost certainly the original intention of Allan Cunningham.

（2789）Pomaderris kumarahou A.Cunn。在安 纳特 历史。3：248。1839年6月（' kumeraho '）[Angiosp .: Rhamn。]，nom。和。缺点 支柱。

类型：[新西兰，北岛，岛屿湾]凯瑞·凯瑞（Keri‐Keri），1826年9月在A.Cunningham 36/58 577号船上航行（船长K000732063;同型：FI条码FI006698，KW条码KW001003127） 。

该名Pomaderris kumeraho最早由Fenzl出版（中Endlicher，枚举。PL：21. 1837年），谁把它归因于艾伦·坎宁安（“P. Kumeraho所有。Cunningh。MSC ”）。但是，该名称是在椭圆形P. elliptica Labill的同义词中列出的。（Nov.Holl.Pl.1：61，t.86.1805）省略号，因此直到1839年才有效发布，当时A. Cunningham（在《自然史》年刊3：248。1839中）接受了新西兰（北岛）物种的名称并提供了完整的地理描述信息和评论。

目前，与澳大利亚（塔斯马尼亚）椭圆形P. elliptica有关的新西兰（北岛特有）物种已经接受名称P. kumeraho 。但与后者不同（Moore in Allan，Fl。New Zealand 1：419.1961; Moore in Tane 31：140. 1986; Walsh＆Coates in Muelleria 10：29. 1997; de Lange＆Rolfe，新西兰Indig。Vasc 。Pl。Checkl .： 95. 2010；Schönberger等人，Checkl。New Zealand Fl。– Seed Pl。2019：157. 2019，https：//doi.org/10.26065/s3gg-v336；《世界植物在线》 ，2020年–：http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org：名称：718018-1；NgāTipu o Aotearoa –新西兰公共数据库：https：//nzflora.landcareresearch.co .nz / default.aspx？NameID = 3CA4223A-4261-4624-96E9-66246C968285 [此处及以下的所有在线资源均于2020年8月14日访问]。摩尔（Moore（lc 1961））用上面引用的艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）标本对该名称进行了电化。摩尔将邱氏标本称为“ K，1837年Keri-Keri任务站，K，1834年”，但是，从与之最相关的原始标签（“ 58”和“ 1826”）来看，一个基尤标本实际上代表了另一种同型物，由亚伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）于1826年收集。该标本于1862年捐赠给基尤。坎宁安的朋友兼传记作者罗伯特·海沃德（Robert Heward）继承并分发了坎宁安的大部分个人植物标本室（见《特洛帕》的《果园》 17：43–86。2014）。Heward或Cunningham自己标记为“否。577”（坎宁安（Cunningham）在他的著作中公开的物种编号 的个人植物标本室（请参阅《特罗佩亚果园》 17：43–86。2014）。Heward或Cunningham自己标记为“否。577”（坎宁安（Cunningham）在他的著作中公开的物种编号 的个人植物标本室（请参阅《特罗佩亚果园》 17：43–86。2014）。Heward或Cunningham自己标记为“否。577”（坎宁安（Cunningham）在他的著作中公开的物种编号植物群落insularum新星Zelandiae前体）与相关联的所有采集信息P. kumarahou（包括词源评论由理查德·坎宁安作出原帖于1833年或1834年最有可能复制）。选型的图像位于http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000732063和https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000732063，以及同型的图像位于博物馆佛罗伦萨自然大学Storia Naturaledell'Universitàdi Firenze（https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.fi006698）。

对于物种上皮，艾伦·坎宁安（lc）取了毛利人的名字，该名称由他的兄弟理查德（“ Kumeraho nom。vernaculum。R . Cunningham ”）注册，并在序言中提供了以下解释：“这种灌木的开花，发生在新西兰春季的9月，是当地人种植他们的Koomeras或地瓜的信号；因此，毫无疑问，它们的名字起源于如今的这种植物。” 由于当时没有书面的毛利语，他会在听取其字样时或在其兄弟理查德在1826年和1833年至1834年收集字体材料时听取它，因此在其序言中，该绰号被拼写为' kumeraho'。在毛利语（Te ReoMāori）中，这种Pomaderris的专有名称是kūmarahou（毛利语字典在线：https：//maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3250），而在新西兰英语中，它也被称为掘糖机的肥皂或金黄色的台尼。据信kūmarahou这个名称确实与kūmara（https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3249）一词有关，意思是甘薯（Ipomoea batatas（L.）Lam。，Tabl。Encycl。1：465 （1793年），带有形容词后缀“ hou”，意思是“新的”，正如坎宁安在序言中所建议的（另请参见NgāTipu Whakaoranga –毛利植物使用数据库：http：//maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz，记录ID号1138）。

不幸的是，正如一位作者（Te Ahu Rei）所注意到并指出的那样，原始的和当前被接受的拼写kumeraho在上下文中是Te ReoMāori的冒犯性术语，因为kume是动词，意为拉，拖，滑，拔，伸展，延伸和拉荷（raho）是指人类生殖器，两者共同构成了不雅和外在的含义。因此，蒂阿胡里（Te Ahu Rei）提议探索更改上位词的可能性，使其与坎宁安（Cunningham）明确打算的那样与正确的本地名称相对应，从而避免使用当前拼写的冒犯性贬义典故。

第60.1和60.3条以及经表决的第6条和第10条示例。ICN的60（Turland等人于Regnum Veg.159.2018）在我们的案例中应予以考虑。我们认为，可以根据《艺术》的相关规定对标语进行更正。60在这里不适用，因为这将违反艺术。60.3。同样，原始的原始拼写不能被视为印刷或拼写错误；之所以要使用这种拼写，是因为Allan和Richard Cunningham一直在手稿（参见Fenzl，lc）和植物标本室标签（K和KW的标本，参见上文）中始终使用该拼写；最近在KW的Turczaninow历史植物标本室中发现的KW001003127标本带有与Richard Cunningham紧密匹配的词源注释的原始标签。此外，第一本毛利字典于1844年出版，艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）分别于1826年和1833年和/或1834年和理查德·坎宁安（Richard Cunningham）收集了该物种，因此，艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）于1839年发布了该称谓的原始拼写（按第60.2条的定义）显然仅依赖于他的兄弟的笔记和记录，所有内容均基于口头来源。同样，如果此上义词是“自动更正”的，则可能基于植物的腐败或错误本地名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚特异种上义的词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 因此，艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）于1839年发布了该称呼词的原始拼写（按第60.2条的定义）显然仅依赖于他的兄弟的笔记和记录，所有这些都是基于口述。同样，如果此上义词是“自动更正”的，则可能基于植物的腐败或错误本地名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚特异种上义的词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 因此，艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）于1839年发布了该称呼词的原始拼写（按第60.2条的定义）显然仅依赖于他的兄弟的笔记和记录，所有这些都是基于口述。同样，如果此上义词是“自动更正”的，则可能基于植物的腐败或错误本地名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚特异种上义的词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 2）显然是在1839年才使用口头上的文字和记载，都是基于口述。同样，如果此上义词是“自动更正”的，则可能基于植物的腐败或错误本地名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚特异种上义的词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 2）显然是在1839年才使用口头上的文字和记载，都是基于口述。同样，如果此上义词是“自动更正”的，则可能基于植物的腐败或错误本地名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚特异种上义的词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 它可能会基于腐败的或错误的当地植物名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚种特异的上位词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称 它可能会基于腐败的或错误的当地植物名称，为许多植物名称（通用名称和/或物种或亚种特异的上位词）的一系列类似的不合理“更正”开创先例。大多数基于“腐败”或“遗失”（甚至故意拉丁化）的本地/本地名称的科学（拉丁语/拉丁语）植物名称都不需要这种“更正”。否则，应坚持例如更改当前接受的名称Cibotium barometz（L.）J.Sm。（在伦敦J. Bot。1：437. 1842；基于Polypodium barometz L.，Sp。Pl .: 1092. 1753），因为其词义几乎可以肯定是俄语中拼写错误的单词“ baranets”（西里尔字母拼写为“баранец”， “小公羊”或“小公羊”，指的是神话中的“ T的蔬菜羊肉”或“镰刀羊肉”：参见Amer的Tryon。Fern J. 47：1-7。1957； Appleby in Notes＆Rec。Roy 。Soc。London 51：23–34。1997，及其中的参考文献），实际上，基督使用了“更正”的绰号“ baranetz ”（在Philipp J. Sci。，C 2：117-118。1907年）。和其他一些作者。可以添加许多其他类似的示例。

显然，以其他语言表示的拉丁或拉丁名字的冒犯性不是对其进行自动更正的一般原因，除非该名称是要根据Art进行纠正的真正的印刷或正字错误。ICN的60.1 。同样，“不能仅仅因为其名称或它的名称不适当或令人反感，或者因为更可取或更广为人知而拒绝合法名称”（第51.1条）。但是，在本案中，我们正在处理毛利人在Te ReoMāori所使用的白话名字的无意损坏，这导致该用语中该称谓词的含义截然不同。由于《 Te ReoMāori》中的意思被证明是in亵和令人反感的，因此，在这种情况下，建议使用临时通过使用与植物的实际本地名称相对应的保守拼写来保留名称，从而更改并更改上皮。在植物，真菌和动物的科学名称中，许多毛利人的名字被用作通用名称和/或称呼（参见Veale等人在新西兰J.Ecol.43：art.3388.2019的概述和清单; Whaanga和（J. Mar. Island Cult。2：78-84。2013），这反映了研究人员对当地知识和文化的关注和尊重。许多此类名称的音译或拉丁化非常接近原始名称，有些与原始名称有很大出入。然而，与Pomaderris的情况相反 在这里考虑使用“守望者”这个名字时，我们不知道毛利人认为冒犯者认为是冒犯性和不可接受的其他名字用作Teeo，所以我们希望拟议的保护不会为其他类似建议开创先例。

随着人们对国家遗产（包括与当地自然历史知识有关的方面）的认识和兴趣不断提高，越来越多的毛利人开始意识到居住在奥特罗阿/新西兰的植物的科学名称，并且遇到了目前公认的该称号的Pomaderris当地称为kūmarahou的物种肯定会令人失望，被认为是in亵和令人反感的。此外，该物种在奥特罗阿（Aotearoa）和新西兰（新西兰）作为观赏和药用植物在文化上也很重要，特别是在称为RongoāMāori的传统治愈系统中（见Econ.Bot.15：6的Brooker＆Cooper.1961; J。 Roy。Soc。New Zealand 6：321。1976； Brooker等在Econ。Bot。43：95。1989； Riley，MāoriHealing＆Herbal。1994；MāoriPl。Use Database，lc，及其中的参考文献）。但是，它在新西兰以外的地区使用受到限制，因此拟议的拼字法更改只会对全球范围内该植物的学名使用者产生最小的影响。

考虑到上述论点，特别是在原始拼写形式中，该称谓词的疏忽但明显的冒犯性（毛利人认为），我们建议保留该拼写形式的Pomaderris kumarahou名称（第14.11条），以恰当地反映毛利人的普通名字几乎肯定是艾伦·坎宁安（Allan Cunningham）的初衷。