help educating employer

[Wolfgang Wuster]

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE wrote:

You need to follow the provisions of the Botanical Code, whatever your
current employer says.

> I am writing to the Taxacom discussion group mailing list
> to request assistance enlightening my current employer. Please
> do not ask who he is.
>    My boss's training is in zoology, butour current project
> is mainly botanical. I understand that most zoologists spell
> commemorative names with a single "i" added to the person's name.

The correct procedure, as laid down by the International Code on
Zoological Nomenclature, is to follow the spelling used in the original
description. However, a lot of zoologists are either ignorant of the
rule, or override it on the basis of ongoing discussions about what to
do with this rule, and use -i.

> In botany, however, the rule is two "i's" unless the person's
> name ends in a vowel or "-er." (or if the honoree was a woman)
>    My boss, however, insists on spelling plant names with a
> single i. Thus Yucca schottii becomes Yucca schotti. I photocopied
> for him the portions of the ICBN explaining the rule in some
> detail. I even underlined the sentence which says that to
> violate this rule is "an error to be corrected." The boss's
> reply is below.
>    My problem is that I am not a Latin scholar. I can merely
> quote the rule, not explain it. I am hoping someone can help
> by answering a few questions:
>
> 1) Is the double-i rule based on Classical Latin? How would
> Pliny the Elder have translated "Schott's Yucca?"

The question of single-i or double-i depends on whether the name of the
person is deemed to have been latinized before appending the genitive
ending. If I wanted to latinize your surname prior to dedicating an
organism to you, your surname would become Laferrierius, the -us being
the nominative ending. In order to make this into a genitive, the -us
becomes -i, making the specific name laferrierii.

In zoology, latinization of surnames is not required before appending the
genitive ending -i, and laferrierei or laferrierii could therefore be
correct spellings in an original description. Subsequent workers must
follow the original spelling.

> 2) Is he correct in his assertion below that the trend in
> zoology has been in the opposite direction?

Most researchers naming species after other people would nowadays use the
ending -i, because there is no requirement to latinize surnames. When
using existing names, the original spelling should be used.

> 3) Can the case be made that zoologists are using faulty
> Latin by using a single i?

No, it depends simply on whether the surname has been latinized before
application of the genitive ending.

> Dear Joe,
>    I am aware of the use of ii in botanical names. As I explained,
> we are not using that ending in the current project in
> order to achieve greater consistancy with the nomenclature
> of zoology and microbiology.

Completely unacceptable. Plant scientific names come under the
jurisdiction of the ICBN, animal names under that of the ICZN and
micro-organisms under that of the relevant code. A unified code may be a
distant goal, but at the moment, we are stuck with 3 codes, and have to
live with them.


Hope this helps.

--
Wolfgang Wuster
School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK
e-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk

Thought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel,
it is probably a train coming your way.