Re: Bambiraptor feinbergi vs. feinbergorum (DGList corrections #134)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/19/00 4:47:13 PM EST, bh480@scn.org writes:

<< This change now seems to fall under the wording "incorrect transliteration 
or latinization" in article 32.5.1, which is not grounds for an "incorrect 
original spelling" that must be changed.  Maybe this point should be referred 
to the ICZN for clarification--I seem to recall some debate during the 
revision of the Code, with the gist being that making corrections for Latin  
endings was not popular. >>

Until I get a copy of the 4th edition, I'm hampered in my arguments, but just 
because a change is not explicitly listed as an example under the 
mandatory-change rules doesn't mean it's not mandatory when the error is 
found. Also, there are justified emendations that are not mandatory, and this 
may fall into that category even if it is not a mandatory change. The 
justification here is that the species epithet has an incorrect ending 
according to the rules, and the change should be made. I think changing 
"caroljonesa" to "caroljonesae" as the species epithet of Animantarx may also 
be this kind of justifiable emendation. Otherwise there is no point to having 
an explicit rule about this in the code. It is like saying, "Well, we have 
this rule that says you must end your species epithet in -orum if it honors 
more than one person, or -ae if it honors a woman, but if you don't, well, 
that's okay, too." This is nonsense, not a nomenclatural code.

I can understand why this isn't popular, because it is nitpicking and many 
namers of taxa find it laborious to work within the rules, but nitpickery can 
also be lots of fun (for others), and the ICZN itself is nothing if not a 
huge collection of nitpickery. I'm all for nitpicking the hell out of 
zoological names, until they're solid good old Latin constructions. The devil 
with "lazy faire."