i vs ii names

[Michael Ivie]

According to the current ICZN the name is to be left as originally
used, unless there is INTERNAL evidence that the name is correct (see
Art. 31 and 32).

A name that is Latin can be treated as either Latin OR modern, so
the names fabricii and fabriciusi are both correct.  A name can also
be treated as an arbitrary combination of letters (11 (b) iii).  If there
is no stated case of gramatical origin, the original spelling should be used
in accordance with the Priniciples of Priority and Stability.  ONLY if
there is internal evidence of a misspelling, should the name be emended
(Art. 32c ii).  In order to use Art. 32c v, and claim an
original misspelling, the revisor should not use her OPINION that the word
was Latin, but internal evidence.  Similarly, if the name is formed as if
the name was Latin, only internal evidence should be used to claim it was
not.  In the final choice, with no evidence of etymology at all, simply
treat the name as an arbitrary combination of letters mimicing a natural
sound.

In the case of Linsley and Chemsak, where the original spelling was
not even cited, the name is not even a real emendation, and must be
treated as a misspelling under section 33b i, as it is not demonstrably
intentional (note there is a misprint in the Example under this section).
(see 33c).

Now, the critical section is Art. 33d, which I will include in its
original form
"(d) Use of -i for ii and vice versa, and other alternative spellings,
in subsequent spelling of species-group names.-- The use of the termination
-i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive
base upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling terminates
with -ii, or vice versa, constitutes an incorrect subsequent spelling, even
if the change in spelling is deliberate; the same rule applies to -ae and
-iae, -orum and -iorum, and -arum and -iarum."

In other words, because any name can be treated as either Latin or
modern, absent INTERNAL evidence, the correct name should always follow the
original usage, period!

I hate searching the code as much as the next person, but the answers
are in there.  I suggest the painful solution of actually reading the
whole blasted thing once a year, and giving a series of lectures from
it every so often, so you have to think about the overall goals and
specific implications.  In general, the answers easily flow from the
original principles of priority and stability.


Michael A. Ivie