Re: *Dalianraptor cuhe* and *Sinornithosaurus haoianus* (short!)

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<The way I read Articles 32.2 and 32.3, *S. haoiana* is a "correct original
spelling" that must, according to Article 32.3, _nevertheless_ be changed to 
*S. haoianus*.>

  Perhaps understandably, David and I differ here not because of the
interpretation of the articles given above, but because we are citing different
articles. Those that he cites simply argue that certain emendations are
obligatory. Those that I cite argue what constitutes an incorrect original
spelling. Neither "haoiana," "millenii", nor "changii" each relate to the rules
applied by those two conditions I listed in my last post for satisfying
incorrect original spellings. Thus they (being "millenii" and "changii" at
least) by definition and useage are correct original spellings. No emendation
has been forthcoming in the over 5 years since the papers were published and
citations of those works argue that these names are by use now accepted as
correct and original. So if one finds fault with "haoiana," one would need to
show how the authors' original name satisfies the two conditions under which a
name is considered incorrect by the ICZN. Otherwise, as the rules state, the
name stands even if incorrectly formed under rules of Latin (-ianus instead of
-iana being David's perception of the correct form).

<Yes, the terminology ("correct original spelling" that is nevertheless not "to
be preserved") is very weird, but I can't manage to interpret it otherwise.>

  Might this have something to do with an ultra-correct view of stemming
epithets?

<Please! I'm talking about the ICZN, not the universe!>

  Which is why this debate is essentially meaningless. Someone made a mistake,
so while the ICZN states that some names must be emended, they don't HAVE to
be. One can let it slide, using, for sake, another section of the rules to
validate this argument in a scientific field that considers the ICZN the
all-and-end-all of taxonomic nomenclature.

<To the exact contrary.>

  Should that we be given the opportunity to step back into history and fix all
taxonomic errors would seem a means of quantum bookkeeping. Douglas Adams ended
his Hitchhiker trilogy with such a method of bookkeeping in order to resolve
the issue of fan influence in a fictional creation. While we might desire to
simply clean up or restart, it seems much more fun to be imperfect and allow
the flaws define the system. Just being better at it next time, to avoid the
errors. I can see no problem using "haoiana" and the sense of feminine
reference while the stem should properly be masculine (though it can also be
interpreted as a feminine declension for the same of the reference to Hao, as
intended -- at which case, why not emend the name to "haoae" which captures the
authors' intent?) and to do otherwise is to instill a sense of
ultra-correctness that makes too serious of a rather flexible tool. To insist
others follow suit (and to invoke yet another British novelist, Pratchett) is
to invoke the Auditors of the universe to tidy a world view. This is why I said
the universe won't implode due to an "incorrect" name.

  But hey, this debate can be made moot by applying to the authors to choose
whether they should correct their name, or do it yourself. In print.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
http://bitestuff.blogspot.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com