gender in species names

[Don Lafontaine]

Re: gender in species namesGary,  (et al.), 

Doug is correct in that the NEW Code still requires that species names must be declined to agree with the gender of the genus. When the last "code" was being developed there was a considerable push to move the code into the modern era and go back to original spellings (unless they are spelled wrong for other internal and obvious reasons; for example Rhynchagrotis [Abagrotis] nefascia was spelled as such (meaning lacking a fascia) in Smith's publication in many placed including the key, introduction, discussion and index but spelled as negascia in the heading of the actual species description. Poole stuck with negascia but the Code allows such obvious errors to be corrected). The need for standardized names is obvious to anyone seeing species bounced between generic names of different gender, especially where there is a genus of one gender and a series of subgenera of other genders and they revolve around being subgenera and full genera as is happening in many butterfly groups. It is also the obvious way to go with electronic search engines, etc.

I believe the BMNH and USNM were at the head of the unsuccessful push to have the last code modified and I also believe that the "rebellion" is being supported in many areas - not just Lepidoptera. It seems the best way to have a law changed is civil disobedience and force it before the courts for a decision. A future change to this rule and a course of going against the current rule was seen as so obvious that the European Society of Lepidopterists (SEL) voted almost unanimously at their Congress in Denmark in 2002 to use only original spellings in all the Society's publications and encourage their membership to do the same in their own publications and web-sites. There were only a few dissenters and from what I could hear (and from personal knowledge) they were trained in classical Greek and Latin and argued the benefits of having classical names linguistically correct.  That same year (or 2003?) the Board of Directors of the Wedge Entomological Research Foundation (the publishers of The Moths of North America, MONA series) voted unanimously to use original spellings in all future publications and check lists. The SEL (European Society) sent a proposal to the Lep Soc (via me when I was prez) to ask us to consider a motion similar to theirs.  

And as a side, the ICZN had to rule on the gender of Heliothis in order to settle the debate on how to spell the species names. Also think of suggestions we've seen like Erora laetorum (for laeta) and Apamea devastatrix (for devastator)! The Latin and Greek scholars that can arbitrate on such matters are few and far between.

So that's the short answer. We are indeed wrong but fighting to be right!

Don Lafontaine

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Doug Yanega 
  To: LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu 
  Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 12:15 AM
  Subject: Re: gender in species names


  Gary Anweiler wrote:


    I see that a lot of noctuid names (and others ?)  that previously ended in "a" (Euxoa terrena, E. tronella) are now showing up ending in "us" (E. tronellus etc.). Can anyone tell me what this is based on and what is the correct current use. 


  Unless I am mistaken, this is evidently because a number of lepidopterists have unilaterally rebelled against the ICZN rules of nomenclature, and decided to simply use the original spellings of epithets regardless of which genus they are presently placed in (including, for example, the entirety of Poole & Gentili's 1996 "Nomina Insecta Nearctica" catalog). The *correct* current use is, sadly, what the Code dictates, which is that Greek or Latin adjectival epithets must agree with the gender of the genus. The trick, as always, is knowing which epithets are adjectives and must agree, and which are nouns (or not Greek or Latin at all), and thus invariant. In the case you give, "terren-" is adjectival (meaning "earthy"), so MUST be Euxoa terrena. Likewise for E. cinereopallida, and fuscigera.


  However, "tronellus" is, as best as I can determine, either a made-up word, or a noun meaning "a small tool" (though to be correctly formed, it would apparently have to be "tronellum", as the root "tron" is neuter). Either way, it should *probably* be left as "tronellus" regardless of its generic placement, since it was originally formed *as* "tronellus" (the rule, in Code Art. 31.2.2 and 31.2.3 indicates that if you don't know whether it's a noun or adjective, or if it's not Greek or Latin, you leave it alone). The same applies to Euxoa vallus; "vallum" means wall, so the name appears to be an incorrectly-formed noun, and probably also E. servitus (properly, it should be "servat-" - there is no Greek or Latin term or root "servit-", and if it isn't Greek or Latin, it doesn't need to agree with the genus). Of course, nothing replaces reading the original description, and seeing what the author said when it was coined. Not surprisingly, all three of these incorrectly-formed names are the product of the same author, which suggests he was just making up names that he thought *sounded* Greek or Latin. Anyone have Smith's original descriptions handy?


  That, of course, is WHY people like Poole and others have decided to abandon the Code: because it's a pain in the (*#^@*& to have to drag out a Greek/Latin glossary every time one looks at a catalog of names. It is also, however, why people like myself are advocating a master Registry of all scientific names (called ZooBank), where - in order to Register a name - part of the entry for every epithet is an explicit statement of whether it needs to agree with the genus (or not), and if so, how it should be spelled in each of the three possible cases. That way, no one would ever have to look it up or argue about it ever again; we can have gender agreement without having to do detective work for each and every name ourselves - just look it up in the Registry, and it tells you right there (each genus would obviously also be Registered, with its gender indicated). It's called "working within the rules" and it's a better option than simply doing whatever one feels like.


  Sincerely,
  -- 

  Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
  Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
  phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20060310/e69a6a7e/attachment.html