Nomenclatural help needed !

[Kathleen Moon]

"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
> 
> While browsing through my copy of the new Peterson field guide to
> butterflies of western Canada, western USA and a small part of Mexico; I
> noticed more name changes that may be related to this vexing issue of
> genus/species gender congruence. eg Satyrium californicum vs. S. californica
> etc.  Seems like every new book puts a different spin on this issue. I have
> no problem accepting name changes that are based on sound field and lab work
> but this name gender issue is a real pain in the backside. If there is a
> professional taxonomist watching this list please educate the great unwashed
> masses as to what the H--- is going on and may I be so bold as to suggest
> that the butterfly taxonomy community gets its act together on this issue ?
> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment - or even some personal opinion.

Pain in the backside?  Phooey!  You shouldn't look at it that way.  You
are no less intelligent than the rest of us, just a little more
conscientious than some.  Look at this logically.  One of the following
things happened (or a combination):
1/ The problem is that somewhere along the line someone tacked the
species onto a genus whose name carried with it the designation
asspciated with masculine gender (grammatically).  Then someone put it
in a genus whose name had feminine gender associated with it.  
2/ The descriptor made the mistake of mixing genders in his/her original
description - and noone noticed it before it got published.
3/ The rule from IUZN came down that names had to be grammatically
correct after the description's publication.

As for "getting their act together" as a community, most of us do have
it together, but there have been some who have described "new species"
for reasons less than what science can support, politics being one
reason, pride another.  Just like some other things that have gone on:
descriptions that include no more than the name and one or two
charcteristics, but no flight times, no larval description, not even a
specimen available in a museum.....  After 30 or 40 years? 
Collectively, that's pretty skimpy homework if you ask me.

No more, no less.