Buddleia is an orthographical variant - which may require setting up a new rank!

See http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art61

Meh ... it is an orthographic variant of types (Charlie: we don't handle these with ranks but with attributes like "orth.") but has "Buddleia" been correctly published? I can see that the confusion between I and J is the cause of the problem and the derivation coming from an English name (the very great Adam Buddle) suggests that I would be a better choice than J but who are we to argue with Linnaeus? ... J is correct and I is just wrong :)

I am mainly doing a Devil's Advocate on this and I can see that this name has more worth than the myriad of common typos that must come into the system. But I'm just trying to be careful that we don't accept something that hasn't been published anywhere and isn't widely in use. :)

AFAIK J is actually a long I - but this is where I leave things to the experts, because I'm way out of my depth here :rolleyes: :D

(Do you mean published in general Chris? See e.g. https://archive.org/stream/bulletinofam … /buddleia) or https://archive.org/stream/watsonia2720 … h/buddleia

Speaking with all the botanists down here they recoiled at the ideas of actually giving any use to the "Buddleia" names. The correct spelling is "Buddleja" with "Buddleia" being the English vernacular name. Anything else is just a spelling mistake if "Buddleia" is used in a scientific name :)  It might be a common spelling mistake but they didn't want to enable people to use it as a scientific name ;)