-i or -ii? (ICZN)
thomas.pape at NRM.SE
Wed Sep 30 09:35:11 CDT 1998
Dear Schlemmermeyer & Wuster,
The case of (zoological) patronyms were discussed extensively on Taxacom
some time ago.
> Some hypothetical name-donator has the name Tschud, then the species'
> name should be "tschudi", but, in fact, it is "tchudii".
It is always difficult to be sure when an author made a misspelling or an
intentional change. Like the quote above: did Schlemmermeyer really leave
out the "s" in "tchudii" intentionally - or simply as a lapsus?? The exact
circumstances are crucial. What exactly did the author write; how many times
does the name appear, etc.
If the (zoological) species is explicitly "named after Mr Tschud", there
would be an argument for an emendation to "tschudii". Still, the author
could have left out the s for some reason, like a different translitteration
if the name was originally in cyrillic, or for the sake of euphony, etc.
The ending "-ii" could result from a Latinization of Tschud --> Tschudius,
and I would leave the ending unchanged.
>>If an animal is named after a gentleman with a name ending in -i (e.g.,
>>Tschudi), then the complete species name presumably should end in -ii
>>(i.e., tschudii). Would a name failing to conform to this require
>>emendation, or does this fall within the remit of Article 33(d), and
>>require no action?
Article 33(d) deals with subsequent spellings. Your question relates to the
original spelling, whether correct or incorrect.
The spelling "tschudi" would be grammatically incorrect (Article 31a ii).
That of "tschudii" is correct and emendation would be mandatory.
Department of Entomology
Swedish Museum of Natural History
SE - 104 05 Stockholm
thomas.pape at nrm.se
More information about the Taxacom