[Taxacom] New species of the future
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Oct 29 18:14:57 CDT 2013
On the other hand, although incorrect latinization is not a problem per se, gender disagreement might be, even for an original combination? Since cavernicola is gender invariant, it should be spelled cavernicola in combination with any generic name, including Eupolybothrus.
32.3. Preservation of correct original spelling. The correct original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered, except where it is mandatory to change the suffix or the gender ending under Article 34 (for treatment of emendations and incorrect subsequent spellings see Articles 32.5, 33.2, 33.3, 33.4)
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species of the future
On 10/29/13 11:44 AM, Robert Mill wrote:
> Impressive stuff, except for one important and very basic thing - the authors have neglected to check that their epithet was spelled correctly. It isn't - it should be cavernicola, not "cavernicolus".- All Latin epithets ending in -cola denoting the habitat of the plant or animal are spelled that way regardless of whether the genus is masculine, feminine or neuter because the ending -cola is treated as a noun in apposition and therefore it is indeclinable. You cannot write "cavernicolus" or "cavernicolum", or anything else -colus or -colum. At least not in botany because Art. 23.5 of the ICN (Melbourne Code) says that "-colus" and "-colum" endings are to be treated as correctable errors, to -cola. There is an accompanying Example: "Ex. 8. When Blanchard proposed Rubus “amnicolus”, it was a correctable error for R. amnicola Blanch. (1906)".
> I trust that Biodiversity Data Journal will publish the necessary correction in due course, assuming that the ICZN also requires that incorrect endings such as -colus be corrected.
The section of the ICZN dealing with mandatory spelling emendations
(Art. 32) excludes incorrect latinization, so "-colus" and "-colum"
endings are fine [though, as an aside, malformed epithets can seriously
confuse the issue when one of those species is moved into a different
genus; i.e., if this centipede is placed into a neuter genus, is
"cavernicolus" treated as a noun, and left alone, or an adjective,
therefore becoming "cavernicolum"? Did the authors of this paper specify
whether it was a noun?].
The only part of the ICZN that might cross that line Robert mentions is
31.1.2 which details how to form patronyms (-i for men, -ae for women,
-orum for a group, etc.), which is worded in such a way that it can be
*interpreted* to mean that if an author screws it up, the name needs to
be fixed. The exact phrasing is "is to be formed by" - not "should be
formed by", which would mean exceptions can be tolerated, or "must be
formed by" which would mean no exceptions. And if there are no
exceptions, there is nothing to indicate what happens then - is the name
to be emended, or declared unavailable, or what? (The absence of any
such statement is one line of evidence that conformity is not required)
As such, there are frequent arguments when one author attempts to "fix"
a broken epithet published by another author, citing this Article for
"justification". It really does *not* seem to be required by the ICZN,
ever, but it can be hard to convince people of this.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom