[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


In a message dated 98-07-20 03:18:33 EDT, Tetanurae@aol.com writes:

<< Since the specific name honors two indiviuals, shouldn't it be _G.
 parkpinorum_.  Am I wrong? >>

It certainly must be "parkpinorum," unless both of the individuals are women
(can't tell from the article), when it must be "parkpinarum." I noticed this
myself (just got my copy of _Nature_ Saturday). You should write a short
letter of correction to the editor at _Nature_. Just a few lines will do it,
particularly if you can quote the section of the ICZN that covers this case.
The Code >mandates< the change; it's not a matter of personal preference or
spelling variants, etc.