"Rosa arctica" - the Kiehl's plant that doesn't exist

Rosa Arctica cream.
© Kiehl's, fair use

Instead of using the wrong name for a plant, you can invent a new scientific plant name to help you market a new product. This is the case for Kiehl's recently released products named ROSA ARCTICA, based on the 'resurrection flower', a rare plant named Haberlea rhodopensis in the African violet family (Gesneriaceae) and used as an anti-aging ingredient. This plant has nothing to do with roses, and the genus Rosa. There is no species previously named Rosa arctica, but Rosa is the rose genus, and arctica stands for being from the Arctic (which this plant is not from). And there is no ingredient derived from real roses in the product either.

 It appears that the naming of this product is a total marketing scam and misrepresentation, and an attempt to come up with a scientifically sounding product name that is also attractive to buyers.

I guess Haberlea rhodopensis didn't sound too great to the PR department, so they just invented a new name - which you can't really do in science. In marketing, sure, but I would consider this false marketing since Kiehl's are using an irrelevant and incorrect scientific name.   But it works, and Vanity Fair likes the name, since they wrote:

"[...] Kiehl’s scientists have taken this flower and made a
fabulous cream with it, aptly named Rosa Arctica."

What is so aptly with a name that doesn't represent the source plant? Imagine if it had been a name of a chemical name that had been changed into a new name similar to a harmless chemical and used for marketing. 

This case is also similar to the renaming of Patagonian Toothfish to Chilean Sea Bass to boost sales, except in this case they adopted the highly regulated scientific naming system for species for their marketing name - Kiehl's didn't just invent a new common name, which would have been much less disturbing.

Here is Kiehl's website ad for ROSA ARCTICA:

ROSA ARCTICA, skin cream by Kiehl's.  Image © Kiehl's, fair use

The flowers in the foreground in the ad are supposed to be Haberlea rhodopensis, I assume, but the flowers in the ad are not very similar to the actual flowers of the plant (see photo here from Dave's Garden website). Not much is known about this plant, also called Resurrection Flower, found in the mountains of Greece and Bulgaria.  It can survive for a long time, over two years, without much water, and then 'come to life' again when watered.

Extracts from the plant has been shown to help human skin (reference link), but at least some of this research was done by the company, Induchem, that is selling the extract, not by independent scientists.

On the official ingredient list on the product packaging, the extract from the plant (listed as 'Haberlea rhodopensis leaf extract', correctly according to INCI) is in or near the very end of the ingredient list, meaning that it is the ingredient with the smallest concentration in the final product. However, the inaccuracies continue, because on the Kiehl's website, the ingredient is listed as "Rosa Arctica (Haberlea rhodopensis)", which is totally inaccurate.  There is nothing called this name in nature, nor in INCI's official list of plant-derived ingredients.  And the reason is, of course, that Rosa Arctica does not exist, except as a marketing ploy for selling more of Kiehl's products.  It might work great on your skin, but there is no logical or ethical reason why this product should have a fake scientific name.

Neutrogena: INCI and scientific species names

Screenshot of Neutrogena Naturals Lip Balm, from Neutrogena's website
(c) Neutrogena, fair use.

Neutrogena properly lists the scientific names of its plant-based ingredients according to the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI). For example, this lip balm lists the ingredient as 'Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter'. 

Unfortunately, even if these ingredient names are based originally on scientific names of plants, they are formatted differently (i.e., no italics and both genus and species epithet starting with capital letter). Additional confusion arises when INCI does not update their names on plant-derived substances and products when the botanical scientific names get changed or updated. For example, the updated scientific name for the shea butter plant is Vitellaria paradoxa (link, and link). 

Sometimes a species name has changed in the last decade or so due to new evolutionary data showing that a genus has to be have a different circumscription to form a natural group.  That is the main reason why genus names change.  Sometimes it turns out that one species is actually two, or that two species actually is the same species, and then the species epithet change and maybe the genus stays the same.  (See here for a blog post about scientific names in general).

The plant ingredients listed for Neutrogena's Naturals Lip Balm are listed to left according to INCI, and the source plant's scientific name is to the right:

Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) =  Simmondsia chinensis

Sesamum Indicum (Sesame) Seed Oil = Sesamum indicum

Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil = Helianthus annuus

Olea Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil = Olea europaea

Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter = Vitellaria paradoxa (link, and link)

Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Butter= Theobroma cacao

See how confusing this can become?  So, if you talk about an ingredient in a cosmetics product you as a consumer or the commercial producer need to follow INCI, and if you talk about the actual plant that this ingredient comes from, then you should follow the most updated scientific plant name.  No wonder the public and companies are confused about plant ingredients, plant names, and plant species. After all, there is a quarter million plants or so to keep track of.

Aveda: The lipstick plant

The plant Bixa orellana (family Bixaceae) is commonly called 'lipstick plant' and it is the plant we get the red coloring annato and achiote from.  It is a tropical tree, and the red dye comes from the seeds.

It is included in Aveda's online ingredient list with a correct photo and description, but it listed with the wrong genus name: Bixz.

Annatto from Aveda's website, screenshot.

Weleda: Wrong centaury

Weleda is a company providing skincare, health, and beauty products based on natural ingredients and biodynamic principles.  They list their plant ingredients in an online dictionary (more companies should do this, it is an excellent resource), and get their botanical taxonomy mostly correct (with the exception of their capitalization of species epithets).

There are, however, one major mistake, and this is a mistake that is not uncommon.  The common name centaury is used for several unrelated plant genera, most commonly Centaurium (a gentian, in Gentianaceae), and Centaurea in the sunflower and aster family (Asteraceae).

The plant listed as "Centaury (Centaurium Erythraea)", should be Centaurium erythraea, but the photo at Weleda's website is of Centaurea cyanus, so the two genera are also mixed up.  It is simply the wrong species photo with the bitter-tasting Centaurium plant they use in their products.

Centaury, screenshot from Weleda.com

The common name for the blue-flowered Centaurea cyanus is often cornflower, since it is a common weed in grain fields in Europe (corn in Europe is not the same as American corn, that is called maize in Europe). Centaurium erythraea on the other hand is a pink-flowered herb that grows in meadows, roadsides, and slightly wet areas. 

The species epithet should be listed with a lower case letter in the beginning, as 'erythraea'.  Weleda gets this formatting rule wrong for most of its plant species names, but that is easy to fix. For example, 'Arnica Montana' should be 'Arnica montana' in the ingredient list to be accurate.

Common names that are the same for several unrelated species are not at all unusual; examples are snakeroot, hemlock, sycamore, and ironweed. One species can have several common names too, so common names can be very confusing. Only scientific names are unique to a species and universal and the same worldwide.  But more on that in a later post. 

Burt's Bees: Canola oil plant

The beauty and skin product company Burt's Bees gets a lot of their botany fully correct in their online ingredient list, but manage to get one of the most common plant-derived oils listed with a mistake in its scientific name, like this:

"CANOLA OIL (BRASSICA CAMPETSTRIS)" (link)

Canola oil comes from two different plants in the genus Brassica, which is in the mustard family (Brassicaceae).  In this genus are all the common cabbage crops - broccoli, cauliflower, broccoli rabe, white and red cabbage, brussels sprouts, rape seed, kale, collards, turnip, kohlrabi, some of the mustards, and rutabaga.  Through artificial breeding over hundreds of years these plants have been bred into crop varieties for the harvest of their seeds, leaves, roots, flowers, and seeds, respectively.

The two species that canola oil can come from are Brassica napus and Brassica rapa, and B. rapa now usually includes plants previously called Brassica campestris (not campetstris, as listed on Burt's Bees website). Since each species includes many cultivars and crops with a variety of common names, the scientific names have to be used to define the species in taxonomy.

INCI lists Canola oil as being  "an oil derived from Brassica napus L., Brassicaceae, low in erucic acid".  [Note the lack of italicizing the scientific name of the plant.]

Brassica napus. Source: Köhlers Medizinal-Pflanzen, Wikimedia, Public domain.

Canola oil is derived from the seeds, which are black and tiny and situated inside a long capsule. 

The Brassica taxonomy is still a bit uncertain (and messy), but here is an updated list of the species in the genus. Listing canola oil as Brassica campestris is not a major mistake considering the messy taxonomy of these species, but misspelling campestris is definitely incorrect.

LUSH: Kaffir Limes and Lime trees (Example 1-4)

LUSH with its fragrant, colorful, and funky beauty products uses a lot of natural, plant-based ingredients.  They provide excellent information about their ingredients, but still manages to list many species and/or their Latin names wrong in their Ingredient Finder.  Their ingredient list goes mostly by plant names, not plant ingredient names. I applaud their efforts in ingredient transparency, and these examples illustrates some of the issues raised in the blog posts below this.

LUSH gets many species names correct, but here are some examples of botanical inaccuracies when plant species are listed:

Kaffir lime leaf, Tilia europaea:  The photo at this entry shows leaves of the Kaffir lime plant, Citrus hystrix, a relative of the common lime and orange, and in the Rutaceae family.  The text under this entry refers to an European hardwood tree genus called limes or linden trees, that is related to mallows and cotton and in the Malvaceae family. The listed species, Tilia europaea, should be listed as Tilia x europaea (common lime), since it is a naturally occurring hybrid of two wild European species in this genus (a synonym for this species is Tilia x vulgaris).
    This is a complete mix up of two species, one a kind of tropical Citrus and the other a tall tree from Europe. These two species couldn't be more different.  Lime of course, also refer to calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide, among many other things.
    Common names in English are often not unique to one particular plant species, that is why we have unique Latin names for all species. I think that the species used in the products are Citrus hystrix, which has plenty of essential oils of a flavor that are also used in Asian cooking. But you shouldn't have to guess, it should be clear on the company's website.  Here is how different the two species are in leaf morphology:

Kaffir Lime leaves, Citrus hystrix
(Image source: Fatrabbit, Wikimedia commons, CC license)

Common Lime leaves, Tilia x europea
(Image source: Alvesgaspar, Wikimedia commons, CC license)

Blackcurrant, Ribes Nigrum: should be Ribes nigrum.

Flax, Linum Usitatissimum: should be Linum usitatissimum

Indigo Henna (Indigofera Tintctoria): should be indigo, Indigofera tinctoria. Note spelling of the Latin name.  Henna comes from another plant, so the made up common name 'indigo henna' is confusing and doesn't refer to a species, but to a LUSH product.