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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Doug,

Your attempt to divorce gender from spelling doen't work! 

32.3. Preservation of correct original spelling. The correct original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered, except where it is mandatory to change the suffix or the gender ending under Article 34 ...

I was never disputing 32.3, I was just questioning the growing influence of "prevailing usage" on spelling.

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. So, what is the original spelling for the nominal species? What is the correct original spelling? That depends on the gender of Aus. We want to be able to specify the original spelling. This is next to impossible if you try to exclude the gender!

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 16/5/16, 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>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Monday, 16 May, 2016, 6:46 PM
 
 
     On 5/15/16
 9:53 PM, Stephen Thorpe
       wrote:
 
     
     
       Mandatory perhaps, but at least most/all
 lepidopterists ignore gender agreement. Anyway, my point was
 really that I can foresee "prevailing usage"
 becoming more important in future editions of the Code, so
 it might be prudent to hold back on making changes now that
 may be somewhat premature. Also, since gender determines
 spelling, and spelling is currently covered under
 "prevailing usage" provisions
 
     
     NO. Gender agreement is NOT affected, because it is not
 considered
     "spelling" in the sense you think it is;
 gender changes have no
     effect on spelling in the sense that the Code uses the
 term. As far
     as the Code is concerned, "Euphoria fulgida"
 and "Euphoria fulgidus"
     are spelled the same - that's why these two
 names, if
     belonging to different taxa, would be treated as
 homonyms! And, if
     the former name were moved into a masculine genus so it
 changed to
     "fulgidus", it would not be considered to have
 had its spelling
     changed, only its gender. Since prevailing usage
 applies to
     spelling, not gender, the distinction is important -
 you're thinking
     of the vernacular sense, not the technical sense.
 
     
 
     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