Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed May 18 05:25:06 CDT 2016 

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
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list