[Taxacom] Correct name of the Wasp Spider

[Doug Yanega]

On 7/7/17 5:14 AM, Dilrukshan Wijesinghe wrote:
> This is a classic case of nomenclatural busybodies "correcting" original spellings to their notion of what a name should be, without following the original spelling. The same thing has happened with numerous other spider names (and no doubt with the names of other animal species). To take another spider example: the original spelling of the name of the pantropical jumping spider which is usually given as "Plexippus paykulli" (with one terminal i) was Attus paykullii, described by Audouin in 1826. With its transfer to the genus Plexippus the name should, of course, be written as Plexippus paykullii (Audouin, 1826), yet the World Spider Catalog (http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/species/32089/Plexippus_paykulli) gives it as Plexippus paykulli. Roewer (1954, Katalog der Araneae, 2b, p. 1086) gives this name correctly as Plexippus paykullii.
> I think the wholesale changing of -ii to -i for the names of spiders was introduced in the more recent spider catalogs.

There is a Code Article for this specific type of change (below), and 
the same rule (33.3.1) applies; if the incorrect spelling is in 
prevailing usage, then it *becomes* correct, accordingly. If the only 
place these spider names are spelled "-i" is in the catalogs, then they 
might not qualify as being in prevailing usage (also below).

"33.4.Use of -/i/for -/ii/and vice versa, and other alternative 
spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names.The use of the 
genitive ending -/i/in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name 
that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct 
original spelling ends with -/ii/, or vice versa, is deemed to be an 
incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is 
deliberate; the same rule applies to the endings -/ae/and -/iae/, 
-/orum/and -/iorum/, and -/arum/and -/iarum/."

"*usage, prevailing*,/n/.

Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by *at least a 
substantial majority of the most recent authors* concerned with the 
relevant taxon, *irrespective of how long ago* their work was 
published." (emphasis mine, to highlight that one calculates usage by 
counting AUTHORS, not works, and that one can go back as far as one 
deems necessary to assess the pattern).

I'm not pointing this out to start a debate over the pros and cons of 
"prevailing usage", only to point out that these provisions do exist, 
and that the reason these provisions exist is so people won't keep 
changing spelling back and forth based on finding old forgotten 
references, and arguments over grammar. The "novel" principle that the 
2000 Code edition introduced is that stability is best achieved through 
consensus (rather than incessant one-upmanship as to who can dredge up 
the oldest and most obscure references, or make the most scholarly foray 
into the nuances of Latin grammatical construction). It is unfortunately 
hard to come up with a purely objective criterion as to what, exactly, 
constitutes "consensus", so the definition of prevailing usage adopted 
is not perfect, but it's an approximation. Names can be rendered 
*permanently* unalterable via the List of Available Names (LAN: Article 
79), but that's a special and difficult process.

Peace,

-- 
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