The story of the superfluous drumstick tree species

Just tonight I was looking through the most recent catalogue from LUSH, the novelty-loving skincare company from Canada, and botanical accuratist as I am, I was scanning the ingredient lists at the end of the catalogue. This is always interesting, you never know what you might find! Here is an example of the lists can look like:

One of many pages in the LUSH catalogue, listing the ingredients to their products according to the INCI database. Photo by BotanicalAccuracy.com.

All skincare ingredients follow the standardized INCI database naming system, so that all ingredients follow a particular format and have a standardized name.  INCI is managed by the Personal Products Care Council who are in the process of updating scientific names that have become outdated or changed.

One of the names I found was MORINGA OIL (MORINGA PTERYGOSPERMA) from the medicinal moringa plant in the family Moringaceae, not too distant from the cabbage family (Brassicaceae). 

Drumstick tree (Moringa oleifera) from Francisco Manuel Blanco's (1880-1883?) Flora de Filipinas, Public Domain.

There is an excellent explanation on why Moringa pterygosperma is a name that should no longer be used on a web page by Mark E. Olson, as part of the Moringa International Germplasm Collection's Moringa Blog. In the blog post the fascinating story of how the two moringa species were discovered, described, and how one name (Moringa pterygosperma) turned out to be the same as another name (Moringa oleifera). Unfortunately both names are still in use today. If you read all the way to the end (while passing by exquisite drawings from the old original botanical works), you will get to the conclusion by Mark E. Olson:

"The summary of this story is that Moringa pterygosperma is a superfluous name for Moringa oleifera. It is the result of an oversight of an ambitious 18th century botanist who was working himself to exhaustion in a race against blindness. Whatever the cause, there is no reason at all ever to use the name Moringa pterygosperma. "

So, this means that every label on a skincare product that currently lists Moringa pterygosperma as an ingredient, should change that scientific name to Moringa oleifera. This will take some time to change, but this is how scientific progress looks like in biodiversity and speciation studies.  And don't buy Moringa pterygosperma thinking it is a better product than something with Moringa oleifera - the two names are the same thing.

Wanted: italics and correct capitalization

As a botanists and scientists I am sure most of us have pet peeves on how scientific information is handled in everyday life.  One of mine is the writing of scientific names for species, the simple Genus + Species epithet that is unique to every species and help us keep order among information and knowledge.  An example of a scientific name is Acer rubrum, red maple.

There really are very simple rules to follow in how to format these names, and none of these rules are really optional, especially not if you want to promote your company or work as scientific, correct, and professional. Here are the three simple rules:

• Italicize species names
• The Genus name is capitalized in the beginning.
• The species epithet is never capitalized.

 The capitalization of the first letter of a Genus name shows that it is a genus.

For example: Acer, Rudbeckia, and Taraxacum.

The species epithet, the one-word addition  to the genus name that creates the species name, should never be capitalized.  In the past, sometimes words that originated from place names and people's names were capitalized, but that is no longer done. There is a great website called Curious Taxonomy that lists species named after all kinds of people, such as politicians, sports figures, actors, fictional and mythical characters, things and places around the world. 

Examples of correct formatting would be:
americanum, smithii, batesii, and yoda - after America, Smith, Bates, and Yoda. 

The italicization shows that they are scientific names, and not cultivar names or common names or other informal names. So for a cultivar of a species you would see names like this: Clematis alpina 'Ruby', where the cultivar name is not italicized and in quotes (read more here on cultivar names). To promote the understanding of the biodiversity of the world it is a great idea to have italicized names in concurrence with cultivars, common names and other information.  Italicized names are not harder to read, and they are unique, as opposed to common names, and can tell you a lot about the species.

Now, are these three rules followed outside the scientific world?  No, not all the time.  It is very common to see either no capitalization of genus names or capitalization of species epithets, and the lack of italicized species names are abundant. Here are some examples:

"Thuja Occidentalis" - at least the species name is in italics,
but occidentalis should have all been lower case letters. Homeopathic herbal medicine sold by TagAway.
(Note, it is homeopathic so it doesn't work, unless it is a placebo effect, link to more information.)
(cc) BotanicalAccuracy.com

One of the worst offenders I have seen so far is LUSH, a company that creates wonderful soaps and other body products from natural ingredients.  Unfortunately their botanical science does not have the same quality.  They not only ignore all italicization of all scientific names in their online ingredient finder and in their catalogs, they also have started to capitalize some species epithets that never were capitalized even before (see 'Matricaria Chamomilla' and 'Pimenta Acris' below).  The other botanical and biological information on the LUSH website are also poor, but that will have to wait for other blog posts.

LUSH website showing 'Chamomile Blue Oil' with wrongly formatted scientific name. Screenshot by (cc) BotanicalAccuracy.com (link).

'Pimenta Acris' on the LUSH website, also wrongly formatted. This particular plant and website
has been featured on Botanical Accuracy earlier due to taxonomic confusion.
Screenshot by (cc) BotanicalAccuracy.com. (link)

When it comes to labels in botanical gardens, it might have been hard in the past to make labels with italicized names, but that is changing with modern tools and machines.  Many public garden labels have scientific names non-italicized or in all CAPS, but I hope that is going to change with new labeling methods.

Plant label from University of Oxford's Botanical garden, showing all capitalized scientific name and no italics. 
© Oxford University, fair use. (link)

Companies and others that print their labels on paper for catalogs, seed packets, and directly printed labels have less of an excuse for not using italics.  Several seed companies get their formatting correct, for examples Renee's Garden (however, the scientific name that they list for feverfew is an older synonym, not the current name):

Seed packet label from Renee's Garden for Feverfew, Tanacetum parthenium (listed as Chrysanthemum parthenium).
(c) Renee's Garden, fair use (link)

Scientific names might seem intimidating, but they are very useful and can also be entertaining.  For more information and explanations, see this blog post by Benjamin Lord.

Sometimes you see family names italicized and that is not against any rules, but it is becoming less common. I never do it in my scientific writings unless a publisher for a particular journal or book insist on it, and in my experience this is mostly a custom in parts of Europe. It is not a common practice in North America.

A jasmine is not always a jasmine...

Jasmine (Jasminum) is a wonderfully and strongly scented flowering plant in the olive family (Oleaceae) and its essential oil has been used for millenia as a perfume.  Jasmine flowers are usually white, have five to ten petals and always two stamens in each flower, and they are often hidden in a narrow corolla tube. The plants grow as viny shrubs.  Having only two stamens is a character that is consistent for all olive family members, like olive (of course), lilacs, fringe trees, and goldenbells - and jasmine.  A few jasmine mutant cultivars have filled flowers, so they have more petals of course.

Typical jasmine flower (Jasminum).
(cc) KENSEI on Wikipedia

The problem is that there is a similar genus, mock orange (Philadelphus), which also have white, 4-petaled flowers, and is gorgeously scented.  This commonly cultivated garden shrub is not in the olive family, but in the hydrangea family (Hydrangeaceae), and have lots and lots of stamens inside each flower. The stamens are the yellow 'fluff' in the center of each flower in the photo below.   In Swedish, the common name for mock orange is 'schersmin', and in English it is called 'false jasmine' obviously influenced by the true jasmine and similar scent and flower color.

Typical mock orange flower (Philadelphus).
(cc) Epibase on Wikipedia

So jasmine and mock orange are really easy to tell apart, and they are not closely related plants, but they still get mixed up over and over on food, cosmetics and other product labels.  True jasmine is commonly used in cosmetics and should be listed as various Jasminum extracts and oils on the ingredient label according to the INCI database. Philadelphus flower extract is also approved as an INCI-listed ingredient and used as skin conditioning agent, but it is not listed as 'jasmine' or similar in INCI. So generally speaking, if something smells nice and is called jasmine-something, then it should include Jasminum and have a picture of Jasminum on it, not Philadelphus.  Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

What really is scary is when the producers and sellers of the raw extracts and compounds don't know how to identify the images they use to promote their raw materials sold wholesale to other companies.  M K Exports India sells 'jasmine oil', and illustrates it with this inaccurate figure:

Jasmine oil illustrated with the wrong flowers - the flowers are from mock orange.
Screenshot from M K Exports India's website, by BotanicalAccuracy.com.

Here are some more examples of inaccuracies on labels and in advertising:

Jasmine perfume by Taylor of London, showing Philadelphus flowers, not jasmine.
© Taylor of London, fair use (link)

Home Scents sells a candle named 'jasmine bouquet', with Philadelphus on the label.
© Home Scents, fair use (link)

Tea forté's Jasmine green tea is illustrated with Philadelphus too.
(c) Tea forté, fair use (link)

I also think the Rock Art Brewery's Jasmine Pale Ale Beer from Vermont has Jasminum in it, and not Philadelphus, but it is hard to know for sure. On the outside label is a Philadelphus flower.

Livestrong.com has a web page on the health benefits of jasmine tea, with a stock photo showing a tea cup with, you guessed it, Philadelphus flowers.

Livestrong's web page on jasmine shows mock orange too.
Screenshot from Livestrong.com by BotanicalAccuracy.com

Some companies get it right, of course:

Mark: Jasmine Petals Get Misty Body Mist (with real jasmine flowers)
© Mark, fair use (link)

Yankee Candle's Blooming Jasmine candle has real jasmine on the label.
© Yankee Candle, fair use (link)

So, the two genera Philadelphus and Jasminus are really easy to tell apart even from small photos, but it is obvious that companies and photographers mixed them up.  Both are gorgeous garden or house plants, so it is well-worth to learn the difference between the two.

The oily shea-butter tree, should it be Butyrospermum parkii or Vitellaria paradoxa?

The shea-butter tree is a very popular source of a vegetable fat in Africa (more information at Agrifostree). This fat, called shea butter, is now exported and used in many cosmetics products worldwide.

Preparation of Shea butter.
(cc) David Fulmer on Flickr.

Cosmetics and other skin products that include shea butter lists it as  'Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter)', following the INCI database of registered names of cosmetics ingredients.  (As usual, parkii should of course not be capitalized, as pointed out earlier.)

But if you look up the scientific name of the shea-butter tree in current botanical databases, the old Butyrospermum name has changed, and this species is now called Vitellaria paradoxa.  The tree is a member of the Sapotaceae family, famous for its soaping abilities.  The species has two older synonyms in the Butyrospermum genus, B. paradoxum and B. parkii (link). So why isn't INCI updated?  Because there has been a disconnect between the botanical taxonomic world, and the world of plant ingredients in commercial products. 

Shea Butter on LUSH's webpage.
Screen capture by BotanicalAccuracy.com

So companies like LUSH have to use the old, outdated name for this species instead of listing its updated and corrected new name until INCI has updated its database. The same is true for many other plant-derived ingredients that are included in the INCI database.  INCI is working on this, but it will take a while.

So, in summary, the scientific facts for the shea butter plant:

Correct scientific name:  Vitellaria paradoxa

Incorrect name:  Butyrospermum parkii

Lessonia: 'Marine lichen' is not a lichen, it is a red algae

Lessonia is a company that provides ingredients to cosmetics companies.  They specialize in exfoliators and botanical extracts, including several from seaweeds. 

So, what is a seaweed?  This common name has been used for all multi-cellular (= not one-celled planktonic) algae that grow (mostly) in marine areas, regardless of which group of algae they belong to.  So included in seaweeds are green, red, or brown algae, which all belongs to different evolutionary lineages. You have kelp (brown), sea lettuce (green), carrageenan (red), nori (red algae of sushi fame), and so on.

There are only a few flowering plants that live in the ocean similar to seaweeds, the most well-known being eelgrass (Zostera marina).   So, seaweed is a practical common-name term we humans use and it groups many unrelated plants together. Algae is the same, that group name is also a practical group name of no taxonomic use anymore since it doesn't define an evolutionary group with a common ancestor and common history.

The group 'Algae' in fact includes members from maybe 8-9 different evolutionary lineages.  We taxonomists sometimes call such groups 'taxonomic trashbags', since they contain a mishmash of many different things that are unrelated to each other.  But when you talk about oceans, we can use the term algae just to identify their plant life.

Irish moss (Chondrus crispus), a red algae.
(cc) Vilseskogen on Flickr

Back to Lessonia - this company sells something call Lichen Glycerin Extract.  In their brochure about this product, also called 'Marine Lichen', they say:

"Marine lichen lives on rocks, in pools, lower intertide."

"The Lichen glycerin extract is [...]  polysaccharides contained in this red algae.  "

The listed ingredient for the Lichen Glycerine extract following the INCI guidelines are:

"GLYCERIN & WATER & CHONDRUS CRISPUS EXTRACT"

Irish moss (Chondrus crispus).
Public domain image, Chondrus, Wikipedia

So, what is Chondrus crispus?  This species of red algae is often called Irish moss or carageen moss, and is the marine source of the compound carageenan, a thickener often used in icecream and many other food products (and some cosmetics too).  This plant has absolutely nothing to do with lichens, and in fact, there are no lichens that live in the sea.  On the rocks along the shore, yes, but nothing permanently under water.  To call this 'Marine Lichen' is as wrong as calling an elephant a giant ostrich.  

Why not call this MARINE IRISH MOSS EXTRACT?  

This plant has already the common name of 'Irish moss', which of course has nothing to do with real mosses that are green land plants - but traditionally commonly used names are OK to use.  Introducing a big misrepresentation by calling this plant a lichen is something very different. Lichens, by the way, are organisms where a fungus and a plant (usually green algae) live together in symbiosis.  Which is very cool!

 

"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.

LUSH: Which bay leaf plant?

 On the cosmetics company LUSH's web page they list information about all their ingredients.  Here is their information for "Fresh Bay Leaf Infusion (Pimenta Acris)", which features a major botanical inaccuracy. 

Screenshot from LUSH webpage about bay leaf
© LUSH, fair use<!--[if gte mso 9]>

The bay leaf, laurel, bay laurel, or sweet bay commonly used in European cooking and herbal medicine is named Laurus nobilis.  In the text below the heading, this name is listed, with appropriate and correct information regarding this species' origin, history, and use. This is probably also the species in the photograph, but it is hard to tell. Laurus is in the laurel family, Lauraceae.

However, the name Pimenta acris refers to a totally different plant species, the West Indian Bay Tree, which has a multitude of common names and its origin is in the Caribbean.  It is also used for its essential oils in cooking, but high concentrations of the oil is toxic.  The current, updated scientific name is Pimenta racemosa, so Pimenta acris is a synonym, and this little tree belongs to the eucalyptus family, Myrtaceae. 

So, which plant did LUSH use in their products?  It is impossible to tell from their website, but lets hope they know...

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.