multicaudata ( try IV )

[Don Lafontaine]

Ron:

You are correct in your assessment of how Papilio multicaudata should be
declined in either Papilio or as Pterourus multicaudatus but that is not the
real issue here. A number of key workers on North American butterfly taxonomy
(and elsewhere also) have decided not to follow the rules of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) but to return all names to their
original spellings regardless of the genus name being used. There was an
unsuccessful attempt to have the new version of the rules of the ICZN
(effective Jan 1 2000) do this, the main reaons being: fewer and fewer
scientists know how to decline names; computer catalogs can't deal with
multiple spellings of a single species; and the genera are so much in dispute
that species names keep changing so rapidly that we end up with Papilio
multicaudatus!!!

Moth works have for the most part continued to follow the ICZN rules but many
of us would find it easier to use original spellings but think that the rules
provide stability and breaking them does not.

So the real issue is do we fololow the ICZN or not!! If so, then the debate as
to the proper ending of species names can proceed.

Don

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

> First part of this transmission can be foung in part I. Part of the second
> part in Brodkin's reply. Now (hopefully) to what has not yet made it
> through to Leps L.
>
> ...Next, in the above, only popular (informal or semi-scientific)
> literature was cited. There is no mention of the most recent lists (dos
> Passos, Miller/Brown /Ferris, or MONA) - which are the latest in a long
> line of American taxonomic lists which have been (and ARE) The Standards.
>     There is no mention of the latest scientific literature dealing with
> the taxonomy of multicaudata (us). That being, the 100% scientific
> publication: Systematics of Western North American Butterflies, Thomas C.
> Emmel editor. I will come back to this later.
>     What we are after here is not "just" an understanding of Latin gender
> suffixes. We are after the correct spelling of a butterfly's "name"
> (scientific identity) according to the latest rules of the International
> Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In other words, what is the correct
> latinization under the rules of the ICZN.
>     So here is the deal. Kirby (1844) described it as -a. Dos Passos (1964)
> listed it as -a. Miler/Brown list it as -a. When under the genus Papilio,
> by the rules of the ICZN, the name should be multicaudata - with an -a.
>     Next, we have the genus Pterourus, which some only see as a subgenus.
> Ferris (correctly) amended the spelling to multicaudatus to comply with the
> spelling under the genus Pterourus.
>     Bottom line. With Papilio it is multicaudata, But with Pterourus AND
> with Papilio (Pterourus) it is multicaudatus. Now, Opler's use of both is
> just a publication error. Scott is technically correct. I don't have
> Tilden/Smith - if they use -us under Pterourus they are correct - if they
> use -us under Papilio they are incorrect ( I don't have their book).  Some
> other references. In Btflys of Can. it is incorrect as the genus is Papilio
> and the spelling is -us. Same for the new Btflys of BC Can - Papilio is the
> genus and multicaudatus (should be -a).  Most amazingly is the use by Emmel
> and Austin in W. Systematics. There they describe two new subspecies under
> Papilio multicaudatus - they are, grandiosus and pusillus. Two new
> erroneous -us endings. (Can I here amend this to the correct spellings? No
> the code does not allow internet science.)
>     REPHRASE. The spelling was amended by Ferris (correctly) to fit
> Pterourus. Those who are using multicaudatus are NOT following Ferris (or
> the rules) if they are also not using the corresponding genus that (by the
> code) necessitates the  -us spelling. NOW, if there is some rule I am
> unaware of that even though "Papilio" is used yet somehow Pterourus is
> understood - then I guess it is OK to use multicaudatus with Papilio.
>
> Ron
>
> PS.  Scientific names are about a whole lot more than Latin (and Greek).
> They are about technical taxonomic delimitations of observable evolutionary
> developments. Common names aren't about anything other than what makes
> amateurs - in their country's language - feel good. (Please note that I do
> fairly frequently use (and "like") common names - I just know their place.
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl