Re: *Dalianraptor cuhe* and *Sinornithosaurus haoianus* (short!)

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<No -- I just cite more.>

  David failed to cite Article 32.5, which argues why emendations are to be
made. Further emendation, unter Article 33, goes thus:

  "33.2. Emendations. Any demonstrably intentional change in the original
   spelling of a name other than a mandatory change is an "emendation", except
   as provided in Article 33.4.

  "33.2.1. A change in the original spelling of a name is only to be
interpreted
   as "demonstrably intentional" when in the work itself, or in an author's (or
   publisher's) corrigenda, there is an explicit statement of intention, or
when
   both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is
   adopted in place of the former, or when two or more names in the same work
   are treated in a similar way.

  "33.2.2. The correction of an incorrect original spelling in accordance with
   Article 32.5 is a "justified emendation", and the name thus corrected
retains
   the authorship and date of the original spelling [Art. 19.2].

  "33.2.3. Any other emendation is an "unjustified emendation"; the name thus
   emended is available and it has its own author and date and is a junior
   objective synonym of the name in its original spelling; it enters into
   homonymy and can be used as a substitute name, but

  "33.2.3.1. when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is
   attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified
   emendation."

  Note that the emendation is accepted when in accordance to 32.5 rules, the
two conditions I have mentioned that do not allow either David's or Nick's
argument (though I may be missing a nuance).

<The ICZN doesn't care about that.>

  The ICZN does care about prevailing usage. The example given for Article 33.2
considers an unjustified emendation that came into prevailing usage and is used
as the correct spelling, if not original, for that taxon:

  "Example. Because *Helophorus*, an unjustified emendation by Illiger (1801)
of
   *Elophorus* Fabricius, 1775, is in prevailing use in the Coleoptera and
   attributed to Fabricius, it is deemed to be a justified emendation; the name
   *Helophorus* Fabricius, 1775 is to be maintained as the correct spelling."

  Then there is

  "31.2.3. If a species-group name (or, in the case of a compound species-group
   name, its final component word) is not a Latin or latinized word [Arts.
11.2,
   26], it is to be treated as indeclinable for the purposes of this Article,
   and need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined
   (the original spelling is to be retained, with ending unchanged; see Article
   34.2.1)."

  If we argue that "haoiana" is not latinized, should We then ignore the
argument of declension?

<What do you mean? I'm trying to find out what the Code says, not what I 
personally believe should be done.>

<Erm... if you deliberately choose not to follow the ICZN, _why_ did you _ever_
join this discussion? ~:-|>

  No, I am trying to get you to not take it seriously; as the exclamation
points in the replied-to post attest to need for. I am also playing Devil's
Advocate, though I feel I should have to TELL anyone this. I am all for
scientific rigor in taxonomy, but there comes a point when one becomes so stiff
that one snaps too easily. Too flexible and the rules are meaningless (which is
the anarchic, name anything anything way). One must find a middle path, one
where strength is paired with flexibility. The bureaucracy of the Code seems
rather inflexible, when clear paths are made between Articles 31 and 34. 

<So you have changed the topic twice in two paragraphs, right?>

  No, I am staying on-topic. Would that we could fix taxonomy that doesn't fit,
but we can't when accepted changes or no changes have progressed in the system.
It used to be that only Latin and Greek could be used for taxonomy, and that
has slowly fallen aside (which in my opinion is wise given the brevity of
enough aesthetic combinations of words to describe animals without overlap
would become a problem without using local or variant languages). I bring up
Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett because they use devices that work in just
such a desire to be ultra-correct in taxonomy, the need to bookkeep the past.
If you apply rigor to the future, the past becomes a happy memory, because you
know fewer mistakes are made. Instead, we are focusing backwards, like auditors
and quantum sweeper agents. Thus, my use of these two authors was allegorical,
not changing topics, at least as I see it.

<Not as long as we pretend using Latin in biological nomenclature, no.>

  Latin paired with Chinese? Recall also my statement about "millenii". The
authors state only that the name refers to the Millennium; they do not state
the name derives from the Latin words for one thousand years, but use the
referrence of an unitalicized, capitalized proper noun that was in prevalent
use in non-Latin cultures of the time. One could (though I understand the
reluctance to do so) infer the intent to name the event based on the event, not
the Latin word, even though that word is the word from which the event derives
_its_ name. Rules be damned, but indirect derivation of words indicate
ambiguity, and thus we can fudge quite a bit and be lax about rigor (as seen
above -- and pardon if this sounds like I am sidetracking or changing topics,
but this IS the same situation as I see it). 

<That's not what the ICZN allows. To give an adjective the correct ending is
mandatory, but to replace the adjective by a noun is not allowed.>

  The ICZN allows the authors to establish their original intent in correct
form. If -iana was an intent to form an adjective based on a feminine name, and
was done so incorrectly, then -ae may be the correct emendation, no?
Nonetheless....

<If I understand Art. 32.3 correctly, this is not even necessary -- no First
Revisor is needed, the Code itself already tells us what the form that "is to
be preserved" is.>

  Article 32 refers to providing corrigenda to establish the intent of the name
without any recourse to revisorship. This means publications, as I understand
it:

  "32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or
author's
   corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated
   slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or work issued in
parts,
   in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted as clear evidence
   of an inadvertent error."

  Correct me if I am wrong on these notes.

  Nonetheless, my position is at this point in sum: 1) The name _haoiana_ does
not neccessarily require emendation as it is not neccessary to emend the name
if the authors themselves accept the name and do not revise it, or that the
intent in declination versus suffigeal form is unclear. 2) The intent is clear,
and thus there is no loss of communication. 3) One can relax the rules to
permit the authors their error and focus on preventing further "trespasses." 4)
As Mickey once pointed out to me, Latin is a dead language, however beautiful
and scholarly (due to preservation by rote and ego in the last entire
millennium due to religious authority being ecclesiastical Latin). 5) Finally,
I slipped in a slight non sequituur above in the form of Article 31.2.3, which
allows that foreign words or names do not necessarily have to be subject to the
stricture or declination rules applied to more strict Latin names, which is a
potential loophole for leaving the name alone.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
http://bitestuff.blogspot.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com