[Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon May 16 16:00:19 CDT 2016
Your attempt to divorce gender from spelling doen't work!
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 ...
I was never disputing 32.3, I was just questioning the growing influence of "prevailing usage" on spelling.
The Code glossary does include:
Different spellings of specific or subspecific names that are deemed to be identical for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy [Art. 58].
What is still unclear is whether "prevailing usage" provisions in the Code make a clear distinction between spelling and gender.
Suppose a new species was described as Aus pulcher. The epithets pulcher and pulchra differ only in gender. So, what is the original spelling for the nominal species? What is the correct original spelling? That depends on the gender of Aus. We want to be able to specify the original spelling. This is next to impossible if you try to exclude the gender!
On Mon, 16/5/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Monday, 16 May, 2016, 6:46 PM
9:53 PM, Stephen Thorpe
Mandatory perhaps, but at least most/all
lepidopterists ignore gender agreement. Anyway, my point was
really that I can foresee "prevailing usage"
becoming more important in future editions of the Code, so
it might be prudent to hold back on making changes now that
may be somewhat premature. Also, since gender determines
spelling, and spelling is currently covered under
"prevailing usage" provisions
NO. Gender agreement is NOT affected, because it is not
"spelling" in the sense you think it is;
gender changes have no
effect on spelling in the sense that the Code uses the
term. As far
as the Code is concerned, "Euphoria fulgida"
and "Euphoria fulgidus"
are spelled the same - that's why these two
belonging to different taxa, would be treated as
homonyms! And, if
the former name were moved into a masculine genus so it
"fulgidus", it would not be considered to have
had its spelling
changed, only its gender. Since prevailing usage
spelling, not gender, the distinction is important -
of the vernacular sense, not the technical sense.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype:
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
"There are some enterprises in which a careful
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby
Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom