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

[John Scanlon <riversleigh@outbackatisa.com.au>]

As David M. said earlier:

I think Articles 34.2 and 31.2 are unambiguous:
        "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])." http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=34

Note the words 'at any time', which seems to render any kind of
'first-revisor' or even 'in-print' restriction unnecessary.  Under the Code
as it stands, gender agreement of adjectival species names with their genera
is as mandatory as spelling genera with an initial capital, and - as I read
it -not to have done so (even if consistently through a paper) is equivalent
to a lapsus calami.  Tricky for many speakers of uninflected languages (e.g.
English, Chinese), but really a quite separate matter from latinization or
spelling (including those -i vs. -ii, and -i vs. -ae issues).

Of course there are those who will never admit a lapse they regard as
trivial, or who take pride in being or appearing ignorant of dead furrin'
languages, and folks like that will call us pedants. 

Cheers,
John
 
-----------------------------------------------
Dr John D. Scanlon
Palaeontologist, 
Riversleigh Fossil Centre, Outback at Isa
19 Marian Street / PO Box 1094
Mount Isa  QLD  4825
AUSTRALIA
Ph:   07 4749 1555
Fax: 07 4743 6296
Email: riversleigh@outbackatisa.com.au
http://tinyurl.com/f2rby


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaime A. Headden [mailto:qilongia@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:02 AM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> Subject: Re: *Dalianraptor cuhe* and *Sinornithosaurus haoianus* (short!)
> 
> David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:
> 
> <The way I read Articles 32.2 and 32.3, *S. haoiana* is a "correct
> original
> spelling" that must, according to Article 32.3, _nevertheless_ be changed
> to
> *S. haoianus*.>
> 
>   Perhaps understandably, David and I differ here not because of the
> interpretation of the articles given above, but because we are citing
> different
> articles. Those that he cites simply argue that certain emendations are
> obligatory. Those that I cite argue what constitutes an incorrect original
> spelling. Neither "haoiana," "millenii", nor "changii" each relate to the
> rules
> applied by those two conditions I listed in my last post for satisfying
> incorrect original spellings. Thus they (being "millenii" and "changii" at
> least) by definition and useage are correct original spellings. No
> emendation
> has been forthcoming in the over 5 years since the papers were published
> and
> citations of those works argue that these names are by use now accepted as
> correct and original. So if one finds fault with "haoiana," one would need
> to
> show how the authors' original name satisfies the two conditions under
> which a
> name is considered incorrect by the ICZN. Otherwise, as the rules state,
> the
> name stands even if incorrectly formed under rules of Latin (-ianus
> instead of
> -iana being David's perception of the correct form).
> 
> <Yes, the terminology ("correct original spelling" that is nevertheless
> not "to
> be preserved") is very weird, but I can't manage to interpret it
> otherwise.>
> 
>   Might this have something to do with an ultra-correct view of stemming
> epithets?
> 
> <Please! I'm talking about the ICZN, not the universe!>
> 
>   Which is why this debate is essentially meaningless. Someone made a
> mistake,
> so while the ICZN states that some names must be emended, they don't HAVE
> to
> be. One can let it slide, using, for sake, another section of the rules to
> validate this argument in a scientific field that considers the ICZN the
> all-and-end-all of taxonomic nomenclature.
> 
> <To the exact contrary.>
> 
>   Should that we be given the opportunity to step back into history and
> fix all
> taxonomic errors would seem a means of quantum bookkeeping. Douglas Adams
> ended
> his Hitchhiker trilogy with such a method of bookkeeping in order to
> resolve
> the issue of fan influence in a fictional creation. While we might desire
> to
> simply clean up or restart, it seems much more fun to be imperfect and
> allow
> the flaws define the system. Just being better at it next time, to avoid
> the
> errors. I can see no problem using "haoiana" and the sense of feminine
> reference while the stem should properly be masculine (though it can also
> be
> interpreted as a feminine declension for the same of the reference to Hao,
> as
> intended -- at which case, why not emend the name to "haoae" which
> captures the
> authors' intent?) and to do otherwise is to instill a sense of
> ultra-correctness that makes too serious of a rather flexible tool. To
> insist
> others follow suit (and to invoke yet another British novelist, Pratchett)
> is
> to invoke the Auditors of the universe to tidy a world view. This is why I
> said
> the universe won't implode due to an "incorrect" name.
> 
>   But hey, this debate can be made moot by applying to the authors to
> choose
> whether they should correct their name, or do it yourself. In print.
> 
>   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