Monitoring for Halophila spp

SAV Monitoring/Mapping CoP Monitoring in the Field
1

Typical Tier 1 and 2 methods are great for capturing status and trends of canopy-forming species, but tend to do a lousy job of estimating the population dynamics of Halophila spp., rarely beyond: “present, patchy, low abundance”. Has the group discussed add-on methods to better assess these diminutive species? For example, I believe the SJRWMD folks in the IRL monitor out beyond their defined edge of bed, specifically to grab data on Halophila spp.

Also, I am interested in the group’s preferred spelling of H. engelmannii: one ‘i’ or two? At present there is an unspoken debate in the literature, with two 'i’s gaining speed. Although it seems to me that the original description (here) used a single ‘i’, as did Ascherson’s personal correspondence with Engelmann (here). It is a mystery to me when or why we made the switch, but many of us have, and I am guilty of it as well. Curious as to everyone’s thoughts.

1 Like
2

two n’s and one i. we should follow the original description!

3

That is exactly what I thought, but the plot thickens…

We were getting pushback from an editor on this issue when yesterday (so excellent timing Dr Fourqurean), Drs Mike Durako and Darin Penneys schooled me in the finer points of IAPT (and ICBN?) nomenclature: Article 60.

Apparently, Ascherson got his latin rules wrong, and the modern guidelines allow for correction without altering the original citation or notation to indicate the change. Provided George Engelmann wasn’t already an ancient Greek or Latin name then -ii is the proper ending.

BUT, Dr. Brigit van Tussenbroek recently suggested that there might be something to the -nn ending that allows for a single -i.

The debate continues. Is there a Roman in the house?