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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed May 18 21:46:09 CDT 2016


I agree with Paul. ICZN commissioner Doug Yanega appears to have confused "spelling" with "name". The same name can have variant spellings, but I was quite correct in saying that gender determines spelling. This once again illustrates how difficult it is for everyone to interpret the same Code in the same way, even commissioners!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 18/5/16, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 18 May, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
 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.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list