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

Re: A question for zoonomenclaturists



From: Ben Creisler
bcreisler@gmail.com


My examples of euphonic names were meant to show that it's the endings
that ultimately matter for the ICZN rules, not the formation of the
rest of the name.

The formation of family names by adding -idae to the entire generic
name (rather than to the stem of the genitive case of the final
element of the generic name with the nominative singular ending
removed, the old method) is a practice now accepted by the ICZN and
seems to imply more general "paste-it-on-the-end" methods of name
formation.

The spelling "docerei" looks strange I must admit, but the ICZN seems
to care only that the ending be interpreted or treated as a genitive
even if the stem to which "i" is appended is incorrect.


I think we both agree that, like it or not, the specific name in this
form would have to stand. About the only thing that can still be
changed or corrected anymore would be the gender of a Latin adjective
(or participle) used as a specific name.

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet
<j.falconnet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your detailed answer, Ben.
>
> I understand that the Code has to put up with the dog Latin used by too many
> taxonomists, but what seemed important to me in this case was that the
> specific name is founded expressly on - and only on - a Latin verb. It
> cannot be considered as an arbitrary - and euphonious - combination of
> characters as Gray's names were.
>
> The species name in question was created from the infinitive form of a Latin
> verb of the second conjugation, similar to "doceo", with the
> masculine/neuter genitive ending "-i", as something similar to "docerei".
>
> In short, here is what the original author stated in his paper:
>
> GENUS Whatyamacallitodon
> Derivation. From "Whatyamacallit" and "odon", for "tooth" (masculine).
>
> TYPE SPECIES Whatyamacallitodon docerei
> Derivation. From "docere", for "to teach".
>
> He himself recognized that it was an infinitive and not a participle, a
> name, an adjective, or a substantive, as he should have done according to
> Article 11.9.1, given that this name comes from Latin.
>
> However, after giving it more thoughts, it seems that the answer was in my
> question - silly me! Article 11.9.1.1 states indeed how a species name
> derivating from “a Latin or latinized word must be, or BE TREATED". In fact,
> the Code seems to care of latinization ONLY if it was originally done
> properly, in which case the Latin endings must be used. Otherwise, the Code
> doesn't care. You just have to treat other species name as if they had been
> constructed following the not-so-Latin linguistic rules.
>
> Here, the specific epithet "docerei" may be treated as a substantive with a
> genitive ending, following Article 11.9.1.3.
>
> What do you think about this, Ben? Is it allright with you?
> And you, dear DMLers ?
>
> Have a good night,
> Jocelyn
>
> PS: French is full of awful dog Latin terms. Compare the singular and plural
> forms of these words: fémur/fémurs, humérus/humérus, tibia/tibias,
> sacrum/sacrums. It annoys me a lot, so... sometimes, I prefer to write in
> English rather than in French. That and my Citation Index, of course. ;-)
>
> Le 21/09/2013 17:25, Ben Creisler a écrit :
>
>> From: Ben Creisler
>> bcreisler@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Without knowing the example in question in detail, I have the
>> following comments.
>>
>>
>> The specific name can probably be left as-is.
>>
>> The ICZN allows names that are arbitrary combinations of letters,
>> which would apply to species as well as genera. For example, the
>> reptile generic names Morelia Gray, Morenia Gray, and Morethia Gray
>> appear to be simply euphonic combinations of letters that sound like
>> Greek and Latin, but in fact do not appear to be from Greek or Latin
>> roots or named for actual people or places. If you named a parasite
>> species that was only found on species of each genus, you could add a
>> genitive ending such as  "moreliae," "moreniae," "morethiae."
>>
>>
>> In terms of formation, the species names is correctly formed with a
>> genitive ending even though the generic etymology is from a
>> combination of letters and not derived from a legitimate Latin word or
>> from a real proper name.
>>
>>
>>   If, for example, someone took the Latin verb *pugno*- infinitive
>> *pugnare" "fight"  and created a species name "pugnari" supposedly as
>> a noun in the genitive case intended to mean "of a fight" because the
>> specimen showed evidence of injury, it would be bad Latin but I think
>> it would have to be accepted under ICZN rules. (In fact, in correct
>> Latin *pugnari" would be the spelling for the passive infinitive
>> meaning "to be fought".)
>>
>>
>> Zoological nomenclature is rife with examples of garbled Latin
>> formations that ignore the different noun declensions, correct word
>> stems, etc. I could list many, but they have been left as-is in the
>> scientific literature.
>>
>>
>> I suppose this comes down to the difference between Neo-Latin and
>> conventional Latin. In Neo-Latin popular usage, the 2nd declension
>> plural form "octopi" has been widely used for "octopus" (a third
>> declension noun in Latin and Greek) instead of the correct 3rd
>> declension plural "octopodes." Technically, it's bad Latin but people
>> get the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Jocelyn Falconnet
>> <j.falconnet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I got a question about zoological nomenclature. If anyone could help me
>>> out,
>>> that would be very nice !
>>>
>>> Here is the jest:
>>>
>>> 1/ A new genus and its new type species were published a few months ago.
>>>
>>> 2/ The type and only species was expressly formed from a Latin verb in
>>> the
>>> infinitive form, to which was added the masculine/neuter genitive ending
>>> -i.
>>>
>>> This name is not only incorrect in Latin, but it also regarding the Code.
>>> Article 11.9.1 of the Code requires indeed that “a Latin or latinized
>>> word
>>> [it] *MUST* be, or be treated as, 11.9.1.1. an adjective or participle in
>>> the nominative singular […], or 11.9.1.2. a noun in the nominative
>>> singular
>>> standing in apposition to the generic name […], or 11.9.1.3. a noun in
>>> the
>>> genitive case […], or 11.9.1.4. an adjective used as a substantive in the
>>> genitive case and derived from the specific name of an organism with
>>> which
>>> the animal in question is associated” to be considered as available.
>>>
>>> According to this article, the species is therefore not available.
>>>
>>> 3/ Now, even if its description follows the requirements of the ICZN, is
>>> the
>>> genus name available ?
>>>
>>> There are rules regarding the designation of a type species from the
>>> originally included ones or from the first to have been included in the
>>> genus (if the genus was erected all alone)... but I don't know what to do
>>> in
>>> this particular case.
>>>
>>> What do you think about it ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jocelyn
>>>
>>> --
>>> "As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from
>>> filthy
>>> monkey men." Hubert J. Farnworth.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from filthy
> monkey men." Hubert J. Farnworth.