[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Nomenclature: Maastrichtidelphys meurismeti
I know of a critter whose specific name ends in sinousaorum (IIRC) but I
can't- remember the generic name :-( , and that's not even for two persons
but for two countries
I fail to remember another (it's on the tip of my tongue, though), but I'm
sure there's a couple of 'em out there
----- Original Message -----
From: "K and T Dykes" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: Nomenclature: Maastrichtidelphys meurismeti
For those who missed it, a single tooth heralded the birth in December of
/Maastrichtidelphys meurismeti/, Europe's first unambiguous contribution
to Cretaceous marsupials (or marsup relatives). David Marjanovik provided
a condensed response to the paper on the DML:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Jan/msg00008.html . As this message concerns the
nomenclature, the most relevant part of David's post is: "BTW, the
specific epithet should end in -orum instead of -i. Mr Meuris and Mr Smet
are two people." I have no reason to doubt that's correct but, should
anybody be able to provide one, that would be most welcome. Here's why.
I've had a brief write up on the critter on-line since the publication.
Yesterday, I happened to hear from one of the authors. He informed me,
with certainty, that the specific name is correct as published.
Apparently (this is sort of in the public domain as the message is on my
<<You state that the ending of the species' name is linguistically
incorrect. Well, this is not true! It certainly is correct!
"meurismeti" is derived from the names Meuris & Smet.
Only when the names of the honoured persons are the same, an ending of a
species name should be "-orum".>>
With thanks to Dr E.W.A.M. for the feedback. I suppose I must as well
include a link to our latest guestbook:
I've been looking at the ICZN code and failed to find anything to support
Dr. M's certainty. Rather, it appears to me that David M's original
comment is correct. It seems fully in line with Chapter 7, Formation and
treatment of names, Article 31. 31.1.1. calls for accordance with Latin
grammar. 31.1.2. I shall quote in full:
"31.1.2. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article
126.96.36.199) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by
adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a
man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of
a woman, and -arum if of women; the stem of such a name is determined by
the action of the original author when forming the genitive.
Example. Under this provision, the species-group names podai from Poda,
victori from Victor, and cuvieri from Cuvier are admissible. The names
puckridgei and puckridgi may be formed from Puckridge."
Finally, I'm also wondering if anybody should happen to know of any -orum
species of critter (anything covered by ICZN rules), named in honour of
two people with differening surnames. Presently, this tooth is the only
candidate I know of.
The Mesozoic - more than just the dinosaur
Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.