Proper Scientific name
fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu
Thu Oct 26 23:07:09 EDT 2000
> First, according to the ICZN code, a single or double i ending is
> considered to be an identical spelling -- either are accepted so
> neither is wrong. However, the ICZN establishes the single i as
> preferable -- which is precisely why Miller/Brown rendered it as
> gilletti. Miller/Brown "changed" many names in that list to make
> them conform to the rules of the ICZN.
Unfortunately, I don't have the latest version of the ICZN. How-
ever, according to the 1964 version:
There is no _rule_ that 'i' is preferable to 'ii' for patromyms.
That statement occurs in the list of _recommendations_ at the end (page
107). Needless to say, these recommendations are not binding. For instance,
one of them reads, "A zoologist should not propose a name that, when spoken,
suggests a bizarre, comical, or otherwise objectionable meaning." (Page
105) One has only to recall _Castnia inca dincadu_ Miller 1972 to realize
that humor has its place in nomenclature... And there are many other such
tidbits out there.
Nor could I find where the Code says that 'ii' and 'i' are to be
considered identical. Instead, on page 57 there is the statement that
"the termination -i or -ii in a patronymic genitive..." is not a sufficient
difference in spelling to prevent two species-group names "of the same
origin and meaning and cited in the same nominal genus or collective
group" to be considered homonyms. That would lead to suppression of the
junior homonym--but nothing is said about changing the spelling from 'ii'
to 'i' in later references to the species.
If I have missed something in the Code, will someone direct me to
the relevant page, or edition?
fnkwp at uaf.edu
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l