Taxacom: Seeking a short work

[Douglas Yanega]

On 12/18/23 11:13 AM, Nicolson, David via Taxacom wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am hoping someone has access to this very short work, and could send or direct me to a scan or images of it:
>
> Habeeb, H. (1973) Notes on water-mites. V. Leaflets of Acadian Biology, 54, 1-2.
>
> I'm trying to see if there is information on the etymology of a species named therein:
> Ledermuelleria Najeeba Habeeb, 1973 [apparently given with that capitalization]
>
> I am thinking that this species, found in the USA (Cayuga, presumably NY), is named for a collector/colleague of the author, and should not be treated as adjectival, although it has been so treated in at least a couple of recent works [as Eustigmaeus najeebus (Habeeb, 1973)]. Hopefully the work gives the etymology (although I am doubtful).

At the risk of provoking nasty responses...

The general default under the ICZN is to treat any non-Latin (and 
non-latinized-Greek) epithet as a noun, and both Article 31.2.2 and 
(especially) 31.2.3 are pretty clear on this point:

"31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate 
whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it 
may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it 
is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the 
original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see 
Article 34.2.1).

31.2.3. If a species-group name (or, in the case of a compound 
species-group name, its final component word) is not a Latin or 
latinized word [Arts. 11.2, 26], it is to be treated as indeclinable for 
the purposes of this Article, and need not agree in gender with the 
generic name with which it is combined (the original spelling is to be 
retained, with ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1)."

The point is that even if the author of the name "najeeba" said it was 
adjectival, it is not, because that particular name falls under 31.2.3, 
and that Code Article does not recognize the coining author as having 
control over the assignment, which would be possible if it fell under 
31.2.2.

The reason I expect some nasty responses is that some people feel that 
any name ending in an "-a" or "-us" or "-um" has been "latinized". This 
is by no means established under the Code. All of these endings appear 
on *numerous* Latin and latinized nouns, so these can't be considered 
strictly adjectival suffixes. Importantly, "-a", "-us", and "-um" can 
all also appear in transliterated Greek, and are not definitively 
adjectival there, either. A species name "newyorkus"?would not be 
treated as adjectival, but "noveboracus" (which is demonstrably 
latinized) would be.

There is a chance that under the next edition of the Code, the 
Commission will provide an Official List of Adjectival Names and 
Suffixes, and that will remove any ambiguity or argument on this point.

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)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cad73731fdf864fe0e80008dc000108fc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638385251812562763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GJUE%2Bd90PTHBCRhRc5RwMIPtoYHSxdqBgD7tldYRWas%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82