[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

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

<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. 

No -- I just cite more.

Those that he cites simply argue that certain emendations are
obligatory. Those that I cite argue what constitutes an incorrect original
spelling.


Both of this is correct.

And then comes Art. 32.3 which says that some spellings must be changed DESPITE BEING "correct original spellings". Apparently "correct" and "to be preserved" is not the same in ICZN terminology.

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.

"millenii" is an "incorrect original spelling" because it's a misspelled Latin word (not a Latinization of anything). Certainly dropping a letter is like exchanging l for n (the example given under Art. 32.5)!

"changii", on the other hand, is probably best considered an incorrect Latinization, and this is apparently to be preserved (Art. 31.1.3).

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.


The ICZN doesn't care about that.

> <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?

What do you mean? I'm trying to find out what the Code says, not what I personally believe should be done.

<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.

Erm... if you deliberately choose not to follow the ICZN, _why_ did you _ever_ join this discussion? ~:-|

<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. 

So you have changed the topic twice in two paragraphs, right?

(though it can also be
interpreted as a feminine declension for the same of the reference to Hao


Not as long as we pretend using Latin in biological nomenclature, no.

why not emend the name to "haoae" which captures the authors' intent?

That's not what the ICZN allows. To give an adjective the correct ending is mandatory, but to replace the adjective by a noun is not allowed.

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. 

Then blame the ICZN, not me.

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.

If I understand Art. 32.3 correctly, this is not even necessary -- no First Revisor is needed, the Code itself already tells us what the form that "is to be preserved" is.