[Taxacom] Neoromicia nanus or Neoromicia nana?

[Laurent Raty]

Chris,

On 01/14/2014 02:20 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> As for the past, beware of Art. 33.3.1, what I call the "Tubbs" clause. That
> is, regardless of whether name is properly or improperly formed originally,
> the "... spelling ... in prevailing usage ...  is deemed to be the correct
> original spelling."
>
> So, one needs only to determine whether Neoromicia nanus is used more than
> Neoromicia nana. Language is irrelevant as usage determined the "correct
> original spelling!"

The "Tubbs" clause doesn't apply here, I fear.

The Code recognises three types of subsequent spellings (Art.33.1):
- emendations,
- incorrect subsequent spellings, and
- mandatory changes.
There is a clause protecting prevailing usage in the case of (otherwise) 
unjustified emendations (Art.33.2.3.1) and in the case of (otherwise) 
incorrect subsequent spelling (33.3.1). A change in ending due to gender 
agreement is neither: it is a mandatory change, covered by Art.34.2. 
There is no clause protecting prevailing usage in this case.

Cheers, Laurent -