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

Frank T. Krell Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Wed May 18 12:28:05 CDT 2016


Fortunately we don't waste time on anything else, do we?
Living a life as a professional scientist, I must say the time invested in determining the gender of a few genera is negligible compared to SO MUCH other waste of time that gets to us on a daily basis.
For me, gender agreement saves a lot of time because I do not have to look up the original spelling. Full stop.
Now I stop wasting time on this... :-)
Frank


Dr Frank T. Krell
Senior Curator of Entomology 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
Department of Zoology 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Boulevard 
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA 
Frank.Krell at dmns.org 
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science salutes the citizens of metro Denver for helping fund arts, culture and science through their support of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). 





-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael A. Ivie
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:48 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops

With the center of gravity for systematics moving from the North Atlantic, south and east, I expect eventually this legalistic Eurocentric nonsense about gender will eventually follow the leadership exhibited by the Lepidopterists.  I for one probably won't live to see it, but I can't wait.  When I think of the time I have wasted over the years on this issue, hours I will never get back and which accomplished nothing actually useful, it makes me sad.  I will try to follow the rules as long as they are there, but this is really ridiculous in the great scheme of things.

Mike


On 5/18/2016 4:25 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> Yes, the word "spelling" is not ambiguous: it is clearly defined in 
> the Glossary.
>    [ And pulcher, pulchrum, pulchra are three different
>      spellings of the same species-group name ]
>
> What is a headache is "correct original spelling"; there needs not be 
> much "original" in this spelling. It would help readability 
> considerable to eliminate "original" from "correct original spelling" 
> leaving just "correct spelling".
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Pape" <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in 
> -ops
>
>
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
>> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
>> Versie: 2015.0.6201 / Virusdatabase: 4568/12235 - datum van uitgifte: 
>> 05/15/16
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

--
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu

_______________________________________________
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