[Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon May 16 16:31:23 CDT 2016


>Therefore they are spelled identically, as far as the Code is concerned, and accordingly "prevailing usage" either applies to all the alternatives, or none.<

But does the Code actually make that clear? Consistently so? THAT is the question. It is all very well you saying that it is so, but that carries no official weight. The glossary definition of "variant spellings" only refers to homonymy, not to "prevailing usage of spelling".

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 17/5/16, 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>, mthayer at fieldmuseum.org, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Tuesday, 17 May, 2016, 9:23 AM
 
 
     On 5/16/16
 2:00 PM, Stephen Thorpe
       wrote:
 
     
     
       The Code glossary does include: 
 
 variant spellings
     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.
     
     Therefore they are spelled identically, as far as the
 Code is
     concerned, and accordingly "prevailing usage"
 either applies to all
     the alternatives, or none. Changing an epithet to
 match a
     gender is not changing its spelling, otherwise the forms
 could not
     be identical, could they?
 
     
        So, what is the original spelling for the
 nominal species? What is the correct original spelling? That
 depends on the gender of Aus. 
 
     
     The correct original spelling is, effectively,
 simultaneously
     pulcher, pulchrum, or pulchra, rather than any one of
 these - until
     it is placed in combination with a genus name. Very much
 like
     Schrodinger's Cat.
 
     
 
     They're identical, by definition, so it doesn't
 matter what gender
     the genus is as far as the Code is concerned; generic
 assignment is
     a temporary thing, and the Code is written so as to
 acknowledge
     this.
 
     Sincerely,
 
     
     -- 
 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
   



More information about the Taxacom mailing list