[Taxacom] Fwd: New species of the future

Michael Heads m.j.heads at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 02:06:58 CDT 2013


Stephen,

No, I think Gary is correct. The -us ending here is a 'latinised'
(neolatin) adjective, not classical Latin. There are plenty of precedents,
e.g. Caprimulgus monticolus Franklin 1831, Parus monticolus Vigors 1831,
Sorex monticolus Merriam 1890, Neusticomys monticolus Anthony 1921, Ellipes
monticolus G√ľnther 1977, Bicyclus sylvicolus Condamine 1961, Molophilus
sylvicolus Alexander 1924 (New Zealand tipulid), Leptotyphlops sylvicolus
Broadley & Wallach 1997. It's a modern error in terms of classical Latin,
as Robert Mill pointed out, but in zoology it's not to be corrected.




On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> Not so fast! If your neo-Latin digression is, as you say "not relevant",
> then your argument is this:
>
>  In ancient Latin, -cola was a noun suffix; the adjectival form was
> -colaris (e.g., agricolaris)...Article 31.2 applies to adjectives, not
> suffixes and "-colus" is not a Latin adjective under the Code. Article 31.2
> is still relevant however-- "Cavernicolus" is a latinized adjective, since
> the authors gave it an adjectival definition, and used the ending "-us". If
> it is later combined with a feminine genus, it should become "cavernicola".
> The authors could also have named the species "Eupolybothrus cavernicola",
> which would have made the name invariant, but the Code does not require
> this.
>
> This suggests that the spelling should be corrected to cavernicolaris,
> this being the correct adjectival form of the species epithet for the
> masculine gender. I dispute that just sticking an -us on the end makes it
> masculine, any more than rosenbergus would be a "latinized adjective".
> Unless it is emended to cavernicolaris, it cannot be said that there is
> gender agreement with the original genus, as required by Art. 31.2
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
> From: "Rosenberg,Gary" <rosenberg.ansp at drexel.edu>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species of the future
>
>
> Eupolybothrus cavernicolus is correctly formed under the zoological Code.
> In ancient Latin, -cola was a noun suffix; the adjectival form was -colaris
> (e.g., agricolaris). In neo-Latin (e.g., Brown, Composition of Scientific
> Words) -cola can be an adjectival suffix, with standard endings (-us, -a,
> -um). The Code (glossary) defines Latin as ancient and mediaeval Latin, so
> the neo-Latin usage is not relevant. Article 31.2 applies to adjectives,
> not suffixes and "-colus" is not a Latin adjective under the Code. Article
> 31.2 is still relevant however-- "Cavernicolus" is a latinized adjective,
> since the authors gave it an adjectival definition, and used the ending
> "-us". If it is later combined with a feminine genus, it should become
> "cavernicola". The authors could also have named the species "Eupolybothrus
> cavernicola", which would have made the name invariant, but the Code does
> not require this.
>
> By the way, Jeff Nekola and I described the snail Vertigo marciae earlier
> this year, reporting Recent and fossil specimens, with a phylogenetic
> placement based on DNA sequences.
> http://sev.lternet.edu/~jnekola/nekola%20pdf/naut-127-107-114.pdf.Whatother instances are there like this?
>
> Gary Rosenberg
> Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
> Drexel University
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:46 PM
> To: Doug Yanega
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species of the future
>
> Just to be absolutely clear:
>  31.2. Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a
> Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, must
> agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined.
>
> My understanding (which may be wrong) is that if, as Doug seems to, you
> think cavernicolus was intended to be adjectival in this case, then the
> correct adjectival forms relative to gender are cavernicola (masculine),
> cavernicola (neuter) and cavernicola (feminine). Art 31.2 would therefore
> appear to require correction of cavernicolus, in this case, to cavernicola,
> even in the original combination ('at any time combined').
>
> The alternative interpretation would be to claim that although cavernicola
> is almost always used as a noun in apposition (why??), it can also be used
> as an adjective with "standard" -us, -um, or -a suffixes. But I see no
> evidence for this!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
> From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 1:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New species of the future
>
>
>
> On 10/29/13 4:14 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
> 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.
> Nope. Original spelling can't be overruled for this, because
> "cavernicolus" cannot be assumed to be a noun; the authors' comments
> apparently indicate it is an adjectivized form. If the original combination
> had used "cavernicola" instead, in the absence of any statements from the
> author(s), THEN it would be invariant.
>
> 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)
> >What 32.3 refers to here (explicitly) is Article 34, which defines what
> happens when a species is moved into a different genus (or rank). This does
> not refer to changing the spelling while it is still in its original genus,
> though that is (very occasionally) necessary, when authors don't do their
> homework and are mistaken about the gender of the genus in which they are
> naming taxa.
>
> This is why we need an exhaustive registry of names; it should not be
> required for every taxonomist to be a Latin scholar. You should be able to
> simply look up any given genus in a list, and see what gender it is, who
> the author was, what its type species is, what the originally included taxa
> were, etc., and likewise look up any given species in a list, and see
> whether it is a noun or an adjective, what its type depository is, what the
> type locality is, who the author was, etc. Once ONE person has recorded
> these parameters, there needs to be a mechanism by which the record is
> SHARED (at which point it would be reviewed for accuracy), and once
> reviewed, it would be archived publicly into perpetuity, instead of forcing
> each taxonomist from now until the end of time to do the same detective
> work over and over again. To some extent, this function is part of the
> Lists of Accepted Names (LANs) presently built into the Code (Article 79),
> but the mechanism is
>  FAR too cumbersome to be practical given the scope of what is needed.
> What we want, ideally, is for the LANs to contain every name ever
> published, but the way Article 79 is now written, that is not possible. A
> resource like ZooBank might serve this purpose, but (as noted in the other
> unwieldy thread) having redundant lists is wasteful, and ZooBank does not
> represent a definitive Commission-sanctioned list, as the LANs do.
>
> Peace,
>
> --
> 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)
> http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html"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
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Dunedin, New Zealand.

My recent books:

*Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics.* 2012.* *University of
California Press, Berkeley.

*Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Available January
2014. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list