Taxacom: Mandatory ending correction after 226 years of wrong usage - the Dasytes case

[Douglas Yanega]

On 1/29/25 12:42 PM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> This is a good example of why I go with the original form of the species
> name regardless of gender rather than try to follow the code requirement
> (which seems to me to be more about Latin or Greek grammar than about
> having stable name labels.

Slightly unfair of you to say this, since you work on Lepidoptera, the 
one discipline in all of zoology that does not accept the rules of 
gender agreement.

Second, you seem to be using a different definition of stability than 
what the Code uses. Remember, under the Code, striata, striatus, and 
striatum are all the same name. Changing one variant to another is not a 
change in spelling, and is not instability. Instability is *when 
taxonomists disagree* on what name/spelling/variant to use. The Code's 
concept of stability/instability is more akin to the dichotomy between 
consensus and dispute, and not the sense of "never changing". Names can 
change a LOT without creating instability, as long as all taxonomists 
adopt the changes.

Allow me to demonstrate with a concrete example.

Consider the following list of bumblebee names:

Bombus asiatica

Bombus bohemicus

Bombus brodmannicus

Bombus californicus

Bombus lapponica

Bombus oceanica

Bombus pensylvanica

Bombus persicus

Bombus sibiricus

Bombus sporadicus

Bombus turkestanicus

All but two of these use the original spelling. Can you tell which two 
of those names does not? *It is confusing to have a mix of genders*, and 
you can't easily tell which are correct, and which are wrong.

Under the Code, all of these end in "-icus", and there is no room for 
confusion. Even under YOUR definition of stability, reverting to 
original spellings creates a massive amount of instability, because you 
won't find any bumblebee names ending in "-ica" in the literature, and 
quite a few bumblebees were originally named in Apis, a feminine genus. 
This would create disagreement among users of names as to which names 
they *should* use.

Stability is *not being confused* as to the correct spelling of a name; 
where everyone treats it the same way. If you abandon gender agreement, 
things get VERY confusing, indeed, for a LOT of names.

> Interesting that no reviewer has ever picked up
> on that code transgression. Perhaps took the view to best let sleeping dogs
> lie.

Actually, that's not entirely true. A few authors post-1799 did treat 
Dasytes as feminine, at least upon occasion.

These are some species named by the following authors:

Dasytes nigrita Kiesenwetter, 1859

Dasytes inexspectata Palm, 1974

Eudasytes brunnipilosa Blaisdell, 1941

and these are some usages by later authors of names treated as masculine 
by others:

Dasytes (Dasytes) caerulea: Laporte, 1838

Dasytes nigra: Blaisdell, 1938

Apterodasytes paradoxa: Herman, 1976

So the treatment of gender was not entirely uniform, historically, 
though these do not offer *much* evidence for a dissenting opinion.

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314  voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (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%7C9eb1f7036f0e40d39b6108dd40bee0fd%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638737910738775913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VPggCDkgj%2BFE9nD4440PZ370OTxUE8TDzF4gi2Rb0Iw%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82