Re: Who put the anus in zhaoianus?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > The reason for why I did so is that *Tyrannosaurus* is a genus name and
> > *rex* a specific epithet. On the species level, genus names _are_ proper
> > names, even though they aren't on their own level. ~:-)
>
> Any taxon name represents a large number of individuals, as such they are 
> not Eigennamen but nouns for a class of items with some shared 
> characteristics, but unlike 'house', which denotes a single such item out 
> of all 'houses'.  The White House is an Eigenname, although more White 
> Houses exist and of course many white houses. Tyrannosaurus is not this 
> kind of name. Thus it is improper to speak of Tyrannosauruses. 
> Tyrannosaurus is the sum of all 'Tyrannosauruses', the plural is inherent 
> in the nominative singular word. And again, on the species level: 
> Tyrannosaurus rex is not The King.

I'm not talking about philosophy or linguistics here. Here I'm talking about 
Linnaean taxonomy. *Tyrannosaurus rex* is the one (kind of) *T.* that is the 
king -- like *Turdus merula* is the one kind of thrush (turdus, masculine) 
that is a blackbird (merula, female).

> Othnielia rex formerly was Nanosaurus rex (male).

Oops...

> Edmarka is named after William Edmark (male) [and Othnielia after Charles 
> Othniel Marsh], so, if one follows your logic, "Edmarka rex" should have 
> been named Edmarkus rex in the first place.

Not necessarily. They're not meant to be identical with William Edmark and 
O. C. Marsh (...the shark *Galeocerdo cuvier* notwithstanding...).

> Anyhow, the gender issue is a difficulty which is not felt in every 
> culture the same.

That's of course true. Here we are supposed to choose the perception of the 
Latin language, or at least we were under earlier ICZN editions.