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

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Mon May 16 17:42:51 CDT 2016


There is no "prevailing usage provision" in the Code for situations when a subsequent spelling of a species epithet identical with the original spelling but incorrect because of the lack of a mandatory change is in prevailing usage.
This means that prevailing usage in such cases has no effect.

---------------------
The long version:

The Code defines "spelling" broadly as:
>> spelling, n.
>> The choice and arrangement of the letters that form a word.

The correct original spelling of a name is the spelling used when it is established, unless it is demonstrably incorrect.
A subsequent spelling of a name, if different from the original spelling, can only be one of three: (1) an emendation, (2) an incorrect subsequent spelling, or (3) a mandatory change.
Changing a species epithet to  agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined is a mandatory change.

The Code rules on how to deal with prevailing usages of (1) and (2):

33.2.3.1. when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation.
33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.

The Code does NOT provide a ruling for situations, when a subsequent spelling is a justified emendation in prevailing usage, as no ruling is needed.
The Code does NOT provide a ruling for situations, when a subsequent spelling based on a mandatory change is in prevailing usage, as no ruling is needed.
The Code does NOT provide a ruling for situations, when a subsequent spelling identical with the original spelling but incorrect because of the lack of a mandatory change is in prevailing usage, which means that prevailing usage in such cases has no effect.

/Thomas Pape




-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 16. maj 2016 23:31
To: Stephen Thorpe; mthayer at fieldmuseum.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Doug Yanega
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops

>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
   
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list