Re: New ICZN Code and gender agreement

[bh480@scn.org]

> Perhaps you should reread that again, then tell me if I 
misinterpreted
> it. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you clearly 
state the Code
> requires changing the name if the SPECIES gender does 
not match the
> GENERIC gender. That is a completely different problem 
than what is
> presented with Bambiraptor. In this instance, the 
problem is that the
> name is supposed to honor two people rather than just 
one. It is not the
> gender that is wrong, but a singular vs. plural ending 
that is being
> questioned.
> 

> 
> bh480@scn.org wrote:
> > 
> > From: Ben Creisler bh480@scn.org
> > Subject: gender and the new ICZN rules
> > 
> > Prompted by George, I took another look at the new 4th
> > edition of the ICZN. Unfortunately, some provisions and
> > examples that provided clearer guidelines in the text
> > portion of the 3rd edition have been dropped...BUT,
> > reading through the introduction and glossary turns up
> > some passages that indicate the intention was at least 
to
> > make species in the form of adjectives match the gender
> > assigned the genus.  The intro (pg. xxvi) states: "As 
in
> > previous Codes, the present edition retains the
> > requirement that Latin or latinized adjectival species-
> > group names must always agree in gender with the 
generic
> > name with which they are combined."  Even though the 
only
> > MANDATORY change in the Latin ending that is explicitly
> > stated is in cases in which a species is combined with 
a
> > different genus, I read the intro to mean that the Code
> > still requires that a type species published with a 
wrong-
> > gender form be corrected, without changing the author.
> > Such required corrections were more clearly spelled 
out in
> > the text of the 3rd edition, but should still be
> > implemented as in the past per the introduction.  This
> > interpretation would seem to mean that the correction 
of
> > Bambiraptor feinbergi to feinbergorum, even though not
> > explicitly required as a mandatory change, is 
IMplicitly
> > required by the Code. Hmmmmmmm. I guess George can go
> > ahead and fix the ending. Sorry for being too much of a
> > stickler on the TEXT itself, but I think I may write 
the
> > ICZN just to get the point cleared up.  In practice, it
> > must be said that such corrections are often ignored by
> > authors, and the new Code seems to want to accommodate 
the
> > hostility of some to old Latin rules. The rewording of 
the
> > Code's text and the deletion of previous clear examples
> > have the confusing effect (for me at least) of making 
it
> > seems as if some basic provisions have been modified.
> 

Sorry if my approach confused anybody. I am not confusing 
the two issues--rather I am pointing out that various 
requirements that were once explicitly stated in the TEXT 
of the Code (for example, correcting gender agreement and 
correcting the genitive form in species names honoring 
people) are still required IMPLICITLY. So, if the 
requirement to make genders match, though not stated as a 
MANDATORY correction in the text, is still intended by the 
Code (as indicated in the Introduction), then other items 
such as correcting the Latin form of the genitives would 
also be required, though no longer explained by example in 
the text.