Fwd: RE: multicaudata vs multicaudatus

[Chris J. Durden]

>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:55:07 -0500
>To: Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: RE: multicaudata vs multicaudatus
>
>Norbert & Pierre,
>    At last some concrete information that leaves us with two possibilities -
>*Papilio multicaudata* - "butterfly, the multi-tailed"
>*Papilio multicaudatus* - "the multi-tailed butterfly"
>    With both forms grammatically correct I think we must take the first 
> as nomenclatorially correct by original usage by Kirby who was familiar 
> with Latin.
>    With the noun-in-apposition construction it does not matter what 
> gender the genus is.
>*Pterourus multicaudata* is thus "correct" too.
>...............Chris Durden
>
>At 06:58 AM 4/25/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>I agree that this is a small hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.
>>The size depends entirely on what importance one places on following the
>>code of zoological nomenclature.  I certainly agree with those people who do
>>not place any value on the gender congruence provisions of the code. Why ?
>>Well because society has changed dramatically over the years and most
>>biologists, myself included, do not much familiarity with Latin. So even
>>when we try to follow the rules it is still easy to produce an erroneous
>>result. For most people the code provisions on this point are pointless.  I
>>certainly support vigorous efforts to bring the code into the twenty first
>>century by replacing the current provisions with an "original useage"
>>clause.  In the interim, it is my choice to respect the rules as best I can,
>>with full recognition that errors will result due to not being a Latin
>>scholar. Readers who get paid to do taxonomy please take heed, show some
>>positive leadership, do your jobs and get cracking on getting that code
>>changed. Ignoring a code provision is, in my opinion, not the right thing to
>>do. My two cents worth on this topic :-)
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pierre A Plauzoles [mailto:sphinxangelorum at bigfoot.com]
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 7:59 PM
>>To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
>>Subject: Re: multicaudata vs multicaudatus
>>
>>
>>"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
>>
>> > I seem to recall some postings on this topic with respect to whether
>>Papilio
>> > is masculine or feminine but cannot recall what the bottom line was.  I
>> > recently remembered to check my ancient latin/english dictionary and it
>> > claims that Papilio is masculine which suggests for those of us who chose
>>to
>> > follow the ICZN rules that multicaudatus is the correct spelling.  Does
>> > anyone have reason to disagree with papilio as masculine ? if so, why.
>>
>>Ah, but, is the meaning of the term "with multiple tails" (an prepositional
>>phrase in which the noun is plural) or is it something like "multi-tailed"
>>(where "tailed" is a past participle -- therefore a part of a verb -- acting
>>as
>>an adjective modifying the noun "Papilio")?  As I recall, the plural of
>>multicaudatus would be multicaudata.  :-)  Now that that question is laid to
>>rest, another crops up: does it amount to a hill of beans?  I think so, but
>>not
>>much more.
>>
>>Still, since you are the one with "The Book" on the subject, I will defer to
>>you.
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    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
>>



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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