[Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -ops
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Wed May 18 11:48:26 CDT 2016
2016
With the center of gravity for systematics moving from the North
Atlantic, south and east, I expect eventually this legalistic
Eurocentric nonsense about gender will eventually follow the leadership
exhibited by the Lepidopterists. I for one probably won't live to see
it, but I can't wait. When I think of the time I have wasted over the
years on this issue, hours I will never get back and which accomplished
nothing actually useful, it makes me sad. I will try to follow the
rules as long as they are there, but this is really ridiculous in the
great scheme of things.
Mike
On 5/18/2016 4:25 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list