Disputatio:Punica granatum

Add topic
Active discussions


It seems unlikely to me that "Punica malus" is a Linnaean synonym (as we claim here, and as en:wiki also currently claims). The en:wiki layout betrays some ignorance ("Linnaeus, 1758" would be correct for zoological names, not botanical). Anyway, why would Linnaeus devise two names for this very recognisable plant? I suspect that "punica malus" is a pre-Linnaean Latin name (alternative to "malus punica") and doesn't belong in the taxobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

Good questions! and in any case, Punica malus could only be the tree, not the fruit, which would presumably in colloquial diction be punica malum (these being one of those uncommon cases where the species epithet is a noun, not an adjective). For synonyms listed in 1816, see here: Curtis's Botanical Magazine. Note that the old custom was to capitalize the species epithet when it was a noun; for reference, Hortus Third (1976) maintained this custom, while acknowledging that lowercasing the epithet was becoming the universal practice. IacobusAmor 12:15, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
And I maintained it, consciously following the Hortus Third example, in my Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. I did it in that book because it helped to show which species names had a Graeco-Latin origin. But you're right, it is now the opposite of a universal practice. (An asteroidal practice?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Punica granatum".