[Taxacom] Neoromicia nanus or Neoromicia nana?
l.raty at skynet.be
Tue Jan 14 08:28:51 CST 2014
On 01/14/2014 02:20 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> As for the past, beware of Art. 33.3.1, what I call the "Tubbs" clause. That
> is, regardless of whether name is properly or improperly formed originally,
> the "... spelling ... in prevailing usage ... is deemed to be the correct
> original spelling."
> So, one needs only to determine whether Neoromicia nanus is used more than
> Neoromicia nana. Language is irrelevant as usage determined the "correct
> original spelling!"
The "Tubbs" clause doesn't apply here, I fear.
The Code recognises three types of subsequent spellings (Art.33.1):
- incorrect subsequent spellings, and
- mandatory changes.
There is a clause protecting prevailing usage in the case of (otherwise)
unjustified emendations (Art.18.104.22.168) and in the case of (otherwise)
incorrect subsequent spelling (33.3.1). A change in ending due to gender
agreement is neither: it is a mandatory change, covered by Art.34.2.
There is no clause protecting prevailing usage in this case.
Cheers, Laurent -
More information about the Taxacom