Chapter 7: Formation and Treatment of Names
Article 34. Mandatory changes in spelling consequent upon changes in rank or combination.
34.1. Family-group names. The suffix of a family-group name must be changed when the taxon denoted by the name is raised or lowered in rank; the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Arts. 23.3.1, 29.2, 50.3.1].
34.2. Species-group names. The ending of a Latin or latinized adjectival or participial species-group name must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined [Art. 31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed accordingly (the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Art. 50.3.2]).
34.2.1. If a species-group name is a noun in apposition its ending need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined and must not be changed to agree in gender with the generic name [Art. 31.2.1].
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
| FranciscoWelterSchultes | This Article could be entirely deleted if gender agreement is removed from the Code (see Art. 30, comments under Art. 31). If not, then one passage should be added: Art. 34.2 is very difficult to understand, an example should be given to make clear what is meant. Example: The names of the species originally established as Deroceras bulgaricus Grossu, 1969, Deroceras demirtensis Rähle, 1998 and Deroceras gavdosensis Wiktor, Vardinoyannis & Mylonas, 1994 (Gastropoda) must be changed to Deroceras bulgaricum, D. demirtense and D. gavdosense because Deroceras is neuter. The incorect declination in the original descriptions cannot be interpreted as an intention to regard the adjectival names as nouns in apposition or as arbitrary combinations of letters. |
2008-10-07 16:35:07 | ||
| FranciscoWelterSchultes | Because of a technical bug it is not possible to add comments under Art. 33, so I add my comment here. Art. 33 33.2.3.1. should be removed, including the Helophorus example. The term "prevailing usage" is not defined (mainly because it would be almost impossible to give a definition). Any article in the Code must have a solid base. The Helophorus example is extremely bad because the correct spelling of this name was fixed by the Commission in Opinion 1724, so it cannot be taken as an example for an application of 33.2.3.1. |
2008-10-09 04:36:22 | ||
| FranciscoWelterSchultes | Art. 33 33.3.1. should be removed, including the Trypanosoma brucii example. The term "prevailing usage" is not defined (mainly because it would be almost impossible to give a definition). Any article in the Code must have a solid base. The Trypanosoma brucii example is extremely bad because the correct spelling of this name was fixed by the Commission in Opinion 1484, so it cannot be taken as an example for an application of 33.3.1. |
2008-10-09 04:39:40 | ||
| FranciscoWelterSchultes | Art. 33 33.3 needs to be modified. It is totally unclear where the limit must be set between a subsequent spelling and a new name. The Glossary is not helpful either. This is the more important since the early zoological works rarely contained references to previous work were names were established. An emendation is better defined because there, both names must have been cited. My proposal: "33.3. Any name regarded as a subsequent spelling must refer to basically the same animals as the original name. If different from the original, the subsequent modifications in spelling must be of a minor degree, and it must be implicite from the context that the same taxon was meant. A change in the gender of a genus-group name does not automatically create a new name, if used for basically the same species. Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but " (...) "Examples: Margaritana Schumacher, 1817 (Bivalvia) is not an incorrect subsequent spelling for Margaritifera Schumacher, 1815, because the modification in the ending was not a minor change, both names have a slightly different meaning. Recorded incorrect subsequent spellings with only minor changes in characters and endings for Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799 (Gastropoda) are Lymnaeus, Lymneus , Lymnoeus, Lymnea, Lymnoea, Lymnula, Lymnus, Limnaea, Limnaeus, Limneus, Limnoeus, Limnoea, Limneus, Limnea - but not Limnaea Poli, 1791 (Bivalvia) which was established for a different group of species. Vitrea riedeliana Paget, 1976 (Gastropoda) is not an incorrect subsequent spelling for Vitrea riedeli Damjanov & Pintér, 1969 because it was explicitely established for a different taxon. This would have been different if the name V. riedeliana had been used for the same species without further comments." |
2008-11-06 10:47:29 | ||