rgatrelle at home.com
Sat Oct 28 23:54:31 EDT 2000
Cris has presented the contextual case for the retention of the double
ii. I have no problem with this. Other parts of the Code however seem to
muddy these waters. This is where my confusion comes from.
Article 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.
Article 33.3.1. when an incorrect spelling [I read this in the case of
Gillett's to refer to the gilletti version] is in prevailing usage and is
attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent
spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to
be a correct original spelling. Example. The specific name Trypanosoma
brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 is in prevailing usage, but is spelled
brucei; brucei is deemed to be correct and its use is to be maintained.
[R.G. confusing to me]
Article 33.4. Use of -i for -ii and vise versa, and other alternative
spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names. The use of the
genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is
a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling
ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent
spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate; the same rule
applies to the endings -ae and -iae, -orum and iorum, and -arum and -iarum.
Example. The subsequent use by Waterhouse of the spelling bennettii for the
name established as Macropus bennetti Waterhouse, 1837 does not make the
subsequent spelling an available name even if the act was intentional. [R.G.
note this does not apply to prevailing usage cases.]
While some of these articles look to be contradictory the key in all of
them is identifying the main subject. The code usually gives a lot of weight
to things considered to be in "prevailing usage," So gilletti might be
considered correct, or gillettii in other sections. I am not 100% sure. What
is absolutely wrong is gillettei or eii.
Changes can not be validated by checklists or simple "field guides." I
have been looking for the citation on this but can't seem to find it. It is
there and perhaps Cris or someone else can give us the reference.
For those who have not been dumbed-down and have thus made it to this
point in this e-info, here is the overall point of these long discourses.
TAXONOMY IS A SCIENCE NOT A GAME OR HOBBY. To those of us who take our
science seriously (lepidopterology), things like the common names obsession
are not just a joke, they are the scientific equivalent to the Cultural
Revolution. Which, as oxymoron's go, was not about the advancement of
intellectualism and cultural but the elimination of it -- dumbing-down.
Dumbing-down is always about only one thing CONTROL. Maybe we should also
get into a discussion on the definition of Fascism. But then we would ask
the question. Are there environmental Fascists?
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l