Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Formation of family name in zoology, based on genus ending -ops

[Laurent Raty]

On 2/6/23 15:21, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:

> My understanding of Art. 11.7.1.1 is that Gorgonopsidae contains the 
> stem, so it would formed in agreement with that regulation. Thanks 
> Laurent for pointing this out, we should clarify this in Code-5. 
> Should read "was formed in accordance with Art. 29".
Interestingly, the conflicting provisions (11.7.1.1 requiring to use the 
stem of the type genus name, vs. 29.1 "allowing" the use of the entire 
name) both result from changes introduced in Code 4. In Code 3, a 
family-group name had to be "based on the generic name then used as 
valid for a genus contained in that family-group taxon" (no reference to 
the stem of that name), and Art. 29.1 did not exist -- a name formed 
from an entire generic name instead of its stem was incorrectly spelled, 
and had to be corrected.

I still do not see that Art. 29.1 serves any actual purpose given the 
existence of 29.4 and 29.5 -- if it was just me, I would simply delete it.


> We seem to have the same problem as we have for species-group names: 
> must an original spelling smithi be used if the name was dedicated to 
> a woman, and contrasted Art. 31.1? The Code defines such a formation 
> definitely as incorrect in Art. 31.1, but in Art. 32.4 provides no 
> means to correct such a spelling if it was formed incorrectly in the 
> original publication. So the name is incorrectly formed, but not an 
> incorrect original spelling to be corrected.
>
> In Code-5 we will have to provide a solution. In the case of dedicated 
> species-group names (honorifics) my recommenation is currently to 
> maintain the original spelling regardless of being formed correctly or 
> incorrectly, and to maintain the spelling with a changed ending if the 
> ending was subsequently corrected and that spelling is in prevailing 
> usage (and this means, if more than some 85-90 % of the publications 
> in the past 50 years have used the corrected ending; we also will need 
> to provide a definition how to determine "prevailing usage", and this 
> would probably range around such a frame).
>
> Art. 29.1: The cross-reference to Art. 55.3 seems to be in error, this 
> should read 29.6.
> Art. 29.6 suggests indirectly that forming a family-group name by 
> adding the suffix to the entire name of the type genus would be 
> acceptable under the Code.
>
> Like in the case of the honorifics we need to consult Art. 32.4 for 
> the correction. Art. 32.4 forwards to Art. 32.5.
>
> Art. 32.5.3 regulates in which cases incorrectly formed family-group 
> names are to be identified as incorrect original spellings and have to 
> be corrected. Basically this Article touches two cases: an incorrectly 
> formed suffix, or something was wrong with the spelling of the type 
> genus. There is no statement about the stem.
>
> "32.5.3. A family-group name is an incorrect original spelling and 
> must be corrected if it
>
> ??? 32.5.3.1. has an incorrectly formed suffix [Art. 29.2], or
>
> ??? 32.5.3.2. is formed from an unjustified emendation of a generic 
> name (unless the unjustified emendation has become a substitute name), or
>
> ??? 32.5.3.3. is formed from an incorrect subsequent spelling of a 
> generic name [Art. 35.4.1], or
>
> ??? 32.5.3.4. is formed from one of two or more original spellings of 
> a genus-group name which was not that selected by the First Reviser 
> [Art. 24.2.3]."
>
> And this means, no matter if the Code regards a spelling Gorgonopsidae 
> directly or indirectly as correct or incorrect, because the entire 
> generic name and not its stem was used, Art. 32.4 provides no means to 
> correct a spelling based on an incorrect formation in the original 
> publication. So the original spelling must not be corrected.

This is a possible reading of the current text... But it means that a 
typo in the stem used in a new family-group name would be correctable 
only if it can be linked to an existing incorrect spelling of the type 
genus. So what would you do to cases like "Prachyptilinae" proposed for 
Pachyptila; "Struthiididae" proposed for Struthidea; "Pelagodornithidae" 
for Pelagornis ? Are these correct original spellings unless another 
spelling is in prevailing use ? Or are the names unavailable from the 
sources where they were so spelled ?

In Code 3, any violation of a provision of Articles 27 to 31 in the 
formation of a name was an incorrect original spelling, and its 
correction was mandatory. This included dedicated species-group names, 
as well as any incorrectly formed stem in a family-group name. It has 
always been obvious that these had ceased to have to be corrected in 
Code 4 only as a result of editorial sloppiness. (For reasons I have 
explained elsewhere, e.g. here : 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.afriherp.org%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ficzn-list%2F2015-June%2F013522.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd3ee461ca2264dc9b88e08db08e46854%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638113549321362877%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ij1xvfnFNtdW3NQrhFlVkDgp8gBuL92xBtXQfVzNzNA%3D&reserved=0 
.) This reflected a long-standing historical practice; it was changed 
for no clear reasons; it resulted in the Code being inconsistent; and a 
significant portion of the community has since continued to act as if it 
had not been changed anyway.

I would revert to this, not try to reinvent the wheel.

Cheers, Laurent -