Taxacom: Latin derivations

[Ziv Lieberman]

Hi, sorry for a new thread as I receive the digest and am not sure how to
reply as part of an ongoing thread.

On June 2, Stephen wrote " Names can be based on non Latin or Greek nouns,
but not adjectives. For example, if there was a place called Bighead, then
a species epithet could be bigheadensis. Maybe it could be used as a noun
in apposition, to get the species epithet bighead, but this would not be
recommended. However, if a species has a big head, then you can't use the
species epithet bighead, you must use something like megacephala (or
megacephalum or megacephalus, depending on the gender of the combined genus
epithet)."

Where in the Code is this stipulated? Articles 11, 25, 26, 31 make no
restrictions on what parts of speech can be used for names, so I don't
understand the first statement above. As far as I'm aware, there are no
recommendations about names treated as nouns in apposition either, except
Rec. 31A which is specifically about avoiding using personal names as nouns
in apposition. Perhaps there is confusion on my part about what you mean -
it seems like you're saying that you can't form a name from a word which
was originally an adjective? Do you mean that a name derived from an
adjective can't be *treated* like an adjective specifically in terms of
declension unless latinized? But if so, that doesn't explain the statement
that "bighead" could not be used as an epithet.
Non-Latin, non-latinized names can derive from any part of speech in any
language or arbitrary combination of characters. They of course be treated
as appositive nouns, but can also just be indeclinable as stated in Art.
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
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fchapter-4-criteria-of-availability%2Farticle-11-requirements%2F%23art-11-2&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc973c21af83c42d90bdd08db7c24bd15%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638240269468832509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9pKipHUi5tAub6if5Jv%2BOvPI%2BD4jnw8bDemQOnPhHl8%3D&reserved=0>,
26
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.iczn.org%2Fformation-and-treatment-of-names%2Farticle-26-assumption-of-greek-or-latin-in-scientific-names%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc973c21af83c42d90bdd08db7c24bd15%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638240269468832509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Cs0Az2eBcxm8jlVCG9r%2Bw4NbCvmtsN%2BT9DU%2F6HfvqY%3D&reserved=0>],
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)." In fact,
an example is given of a Tibetan adjective *nakpo* ("black") which is
simply treated as indeclinable.
So, what prevents the epithet *bighead* from being given as a noun in
apposition or as an indeclinable, non-Latin derived, non-latinized
name? *Iridomyrmex
bigi* Shattuck, 1993, the name of which "refers to the big eyes found in
this species" and treated as a noun in apposition, is certainly valid.
-Ziv