There is some uncertainty whether harringtonia or harringtonii is the correct species epithet, based on the original basionym Taxus harringtonia. If the epithet refers to a personal pronoun then harringtonia can be a correctable error under ICBN Art. 60, although this may not necessarily be the case if it is a title. However, harringtonia may be a type locality or similar non-genitive noun in apposition in which case it is retained. The prologue for T. harringtonia is unclear, but it worth noting that knowledge of Latin was very good at the time. Kew has been contacted recently and they have come to the conclusion that harringtonia is correct and have now amended WCSP to reflect this. The alternative is also widely found, although harringtonia is still much more common in recent scientific literature and is used in Japanese flora.
Note: Farjon, A. 2001. World Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers , ed. 2: 1-309, was the first to use harringtonii, but had reversed this in his later publication Farjon, A. 2010. A handbook of the world's Conifers 1: 1-526. BRILL, Leiden, Boston. Lang et al., 2013 made an error when trying to formalise harringtonii by citing ICBN Art. 60.7, Ex.15.
Clearly the species epithet is a matter of opinion and given the uncertainty WS should adopt a conservative position and maintain the status quo, as seen on WCSP. Andyboorman (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- [small correction to the above - the 1998 first edition of Farjon's Checklist was the first to use harringtonii - MPF (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)]
- See page 394. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 71. Therefore, the alternate species epithets are a matter of preference and opinion not compulsion and this page can remain. Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)