ICZN Article 32.5 - incorrect original spellings

[W.Wuster]

Dear Listmembers,

I have recently found myself confused in the interpretation of Article 32.5
of the current edition of the Code, as well as a comparison with the
corresponding Article 32 c ii of the 3rd edition.

Both editions carry the statement that "incorrect transliteration or
latinization [...] are not to be considered inadvertent errors"

The 3rd edition gives as one of the examples of the application of the
article the case of Eptesicus douglasi, named after Marion and Athol
Douglas, which must be corrected to E. douglasorum. In the 4th edition,
this particular example is missing.

My questions are the following:

- does the grammatically incorrect "douglasi" in that example simply
constitute an "incorrect latinization" that does not require correction, or
should such a name be emended if discovered now?

- does the omission of the douglasi example from the 4th edition of the
Code signify a change in the rules relative to the 3rd edition, or a change
in the interpretation of Article 32.5?

- if there was a change in the rules or interpretation, what should be done
about names coined before 1/1/2000 that were formed incorrectly under the
provisions of the 3rd edition of the Code in force at the time?

The reason for the questions is that I have had occasion to deal with some
grammatically incorrect names of snakes formed by an Australian
herpetologist:

The specifics are:

- In 1998, Hoser described the species Acanthophis wellsei, named after
Richard Wells. This was emended to A. wellsi by Aplin & Donnellan (1999) -
was this emendation justified or not?

- Equally, in 1998, Hoser described the taxa Acanthophis crotalusei (named
after his dog Crotalus...), Acanthophis lancasteri cummingi (after a lady
by the name of Cumming), and Pailsus pailsei (after a Mr. Pails).

- In 2000, Hoser described the taxa Leiopython albertisi barkeri (named
after David and Tracy Barker) and Leiopython albertisi bennetti (named
after Daniel Bennett and Clive Bennett)

In all cases, the specific epithet was clearly formed in a manner
inconsistent with Latin grammar. Moreover, in the last example, the error
corresponds exactly to the "douglasi/douglasorum" example in the 3rd
edition of the Code. The question is, do any of these names require
emendation under the provisions of the 4th edition, or are these now simply
considered to be "incorrect latinizations" which do not require emendation?
Does this apply equally to names coined before and after the coming into
force of the 4th edition of the Code?

I have requested guidance from Philip Tubbs (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl.),
but in the meantime, I would be interested in the views and of other
listmembers on the interpretation of this article.

Best wishes,

Wolfgang W?ster
--
Dr. Wolfgang W?ster  -  Lecturer
School of Biological Sciences    Tel: +44 1248 382301
University of Wales              Fax: +44 1248 371644
Bangor LL57  2UW                 E-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk
Wales, UK                        http://sbsweb.bangor.ac.uk/