[Taxacom] Correct name of the Wasp Spider

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Apparently those who put the name into prevailing usage
felt there ought to have been one, and based themselves
directly on the surname?

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Correct name of the Wasp Spider


>
> There is no diacritic in the name in the original publication.  Looking as
> hard as possible I cannot detect any diacritic mark on the U.   Someone
> may have wrongly added a diacritic later but it was not in the original.
>
> Go to p.125 at this link:
> http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PID=PPN572160542&physid=PHYS_0001
>
> Aranea Brunnichii
>
> Geoff
>
> On Sat, July 8, 2017 7:51 pm, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>> For completeness sake, the -e- will have been added
>> because it was (presumably) named after the Danish
>> zoologist Morten Thrane Brünnich. As governed by
>> Article 32.5.2.1 an umlaut in a German word (or a
>> word about which there is doubt as to its provenance)
>> is to be deleted and an -e- is to be added.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 7:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Correct name of the Wasp Spider
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> ---
> Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>