[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Pegomastax, new heterodontosaurid from South Africa in new Sereno monograph (free pdf!)
I will break from my previous argument and agree that, in this case, David is
correct: I agree, in general, that Art. 31.2 is applicable. If so, a
corrigendum would be necessary. Previous arguments have followed from pre- 1st
of January (2000) nomenclature, but this is post that date, and so 4th edition
rules do, as David states, apply:
"31.2. Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin
or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, must agree in
gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined.
"34.2. Species-group names. The ending of a Latin or latinized adjectival or
participial species-group name must agree in gender with the generic name with
which it is at any time combined [Art. 31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect
it must be changed accordingly (the author and date of the name remain
unchanged [Art. 50.3.2])."
I disagree with David, however, who states that "no nomenclatural act is
required to make it so," as the structure of the sentence is merely "must be
changed." Perhaps the statement is ambiguous? No reviser is needed, true, due
to the fact that there is no conflict of nomenclature to resolve -- two names
do not complete, two spellings or ligatures, or whatever -- but there must be a
note made, else no one will _know_. Perhaps the tradition before has been to
simply use a different spelling, but it must actually be printed for others to
follow. And I think that's the right course: a corrigendum.
However, I am curious: What nomenclature has changed gender _automatically_
as a reading of the ICZN -- post 1 January, 2000 mind you -- and further, has
been used _by different authors_ (to clarify: not by _any_ of the original
authors who begin using the "changed" form), but _hasn't_ been conflicted by
later usage of the "original" nomenclature?
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:16:28 +0200
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Pegomastax, new heterodontosaurid from South Africa in new
> Sereno monograph (free pdf!)
> > <(NOTE: One glitch in the name : mastax "jaw" is feminine in Greek so
> > the name should be Pegomastax africana to follow the letter of the
> > rules.)>
> > Theretically, yes; technically, no. And under the current rules of
> > the ICZN (4th Edition), should one follow them, it is no longer
> > necessary, or even mandatory, to alter the gender of an epithet to
> > agree with the genus' epithet.
> Well, if you want to get really technical, there's no need (or way) to
> _alter_ the gender because it _already_ agrees. The way I read the rules
> (yes, 4th edition), the correct name is *Pegomastax africana* Sereno,
> 2012, and no nomenclatural act is required to make it so, because it
> already is.
> "31.2. Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a
> Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular,
> must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time
> I don't see any wiggle room in "must" or "at any time".