Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Uleiota Latreille and Uleiota dubi*

Wed Jan 24 10:55:08 CST 2024

Is there an actual reason to make this a vox hybrida (half-Greek, 
half-French)...?

My inclination would be to treat Uleiota as a latinization (with change 
of ending) of ὑλειώτης (uleiôtês), which Greek dictionaries translate as 
'forester' -- itself formed from ὕλη (ulê), forest + -ώτης (-ôtês), a 
Greek masculine noun-forming suffix, used i.a. to form some demonyms. 
(In English, this suffix becomes -ot, as in 'Cypriot', an inhabitant of 
Cyprus; this derivation is consistent enough with Latreille's subsequent 
statement that the name means "habitant des forêts".)

Although ὑλειώτης is clearly masculine in Greek, Uleiota "takes the 
gender normally appropriate to [its] changed ending", which makes it 
feminine under Art. 30.1.3. (This would be true even if Latreille had 
treated it as masculine or neuter, explicitly or implicitly, I believe.)

Latreille himself subsequently treated the name as feminine ("Uleiota 
testacea") in this : https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F41892702&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758006895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AbZmk50n43CAPUSy61Tpcm4uXq6L2Wj3kufLhXZNe4E%3D&reserved=0.

However, Uleiota appears indeed to have often been treated as masculine 
-- e.g., see the many hits for that "Uleiota planatus" produce in Google 
-- presumably because it was given the gender of the Greek word which it 
was derived from.

This name was introduced in :

Latreille PA. 1797. Précis des caractères gérériques des insectes, 
disposés dans un ordre naturel. F Bourdeau, Brive; Prévôt, Paris.

p. 46 : https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F42201834&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758006895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kvCZNFko3hsTTP3CehfW94PwYmxYIQAc4LyeTz%2FUBJo%3D&reserved=0

(This book has often been dated to 1796. The title page says "An 5 de la 
R.", which means in the period 22 Sep 1796-21 Sep 1797. The book was 
presented by Cuvier, on behalf of Latreille, to the Académie des 
Sciences in Paris on 11 Pluviôse, An 5 = 30 Jan 1797, see 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgallica.bnf.fr%2Fark%3A%2F12148%2Fbpt6k3294s%2Ff177&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758006895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=djt14fPEW5PgF7Q%2FcdjfcaXpod3ddMOecFbXOdwCLd0%3D&reserved=0 .)

The type species appears to be Cucujus flavipes Fabricius 1792, by 
subsequent monotypy (cited as "Brontes flavipes, F.") in the 3rd vol. of 
Histoire générale et particulière des crustacés et des insectes : 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F24885085&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758006895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l%2BjjiMyHIYAlUtZAo1%2Bg9vDsVDVxGGkCZL%2FazxwvtA4%3D&reserved=0 . (Date of this act : 
title page dated "An X", but a footnote on p. 59 referring to a work 
published in An 11 conflicts with this; publication reported in J. 
Typogr. Bibliogr. on 15 Brumaire, An 11 = 6 Nov 1802, 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DnDERAAAAIAAJ%26pg%3DPA42&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758163164%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QlUcskploSu4v6ZiDrzmtwW68qPOMuBufX90khHTeaM%3D&reserved=0 .)

Cheers, Laurent -

On 1/23/24 11:58, Mary Barkworth via Taxacom wrote:
> Thank you both for your clear and swift responses.  I am going ask for a little more help. The author citation please! And then perhaps Catalogue of Life could add at least one species to the genus and two infraspecies - with authors.
>
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom<taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>  On Behalf Of Jacques Melot via Taxacom
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:05 AM
> To: Douglas Yanega<dyanega at gmail.com>;taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Uleiota Latreille and Uleiota dubi*
>
>    Le 22/01/24, à 17:09 -0800, nous recevions de Douglas Yanega via Taxacom :
>
>> On 1/22/24 2:57 PM, Mary Barkworth via Taxacom wrote:
>>> Question: Should it be Uleiota dubius or U.
>>> dubia? The source I am looking at uses dubia for the specific epithet
>>> and dubius at the infraspecific level. I suspect that they should be
>>> the same - but which same?
>> Uleiota Latreille, 1797, was described with no originally included
>> species. The name is neither Latin nor Greek, so the gender is feminine
>> under ICZN Article 30.2.4. I see no way anyone could justify treatment
>> of the genus as masculine.
>>
>> Peace,
>      peace... d'accord. Pour le reste, Latreille donne l'étymologie du nom Uleiota, en français Uléiote, dans Hist. gén. partic. Crut. Insectes, tome XI (an XII, soit 1799), à la p. 257 :
>
> Uléiote [...] et nous en avons formé le genre uléiote (habitant des forêts).
>
> « ule » est tiré du grec pour « forêt », le suffixe « -iote » est français à valeur diminutive dans la formation des adjectifs et de même origine (latine) que le diminutif bien connu « -ette » (allumette, lunette, opérette, majorette, etc. Cf. Oxford English Dictionary à « -ette »).
>
>      Le mot est donc formé sur le modèle de Pholiote (fr.) > Pholiota (Psalliota, Lepiota, etc., tous des féminins en latin botanique).
>
>      Pour les suffixes français voir par exemple (à -ot, -otte, -ote, -iotte, etc.) :
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitrobert.lerobert.com%2Fdemo%2Faidepr%2Fpages%2FSuffixesO.HTML&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cce200391906141556a1508dc1cfd3c35%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417121758163164%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C41000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DemYpdHM31YgLAup6nj%2BKViQfZYqYfdV9z3pERHwSeo%3D&reserved=0
>
>      Salutations,
>
>      Jacques Melot