help educating employer

[Dennis Paulson]

Joseph Laferriere wrote:

>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.
>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?"
>
>2) Is he correct in his assertion below that the trend in
>zoology has been in the opposite direction?
>
>3) Can the case be made that zoologists are using faulty
>Latin by using a single i?
>
>Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Any help
>anyone can give would be vrey much appreciated.
>
>Joseph E. Laferriere, PhD
>JosephL at aztec.asu.edu
>
>
>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.
>    In the past, zoology also used ii, but most recent works
>do not. I brought several references to the lab which
>you are welcome to look at if you wish to observe such
>usage.
>   It seems a bit odd that botany uses ii for words that
>are supposed to be based on Latin. This does not seem
>reasonable regarding pronunciation considering modern Latin-
>derived languages such as Spanish that never double vowels
>in one word.
>   In any case, there is a reason for our using one i.

I don't agree with the writer of this letter.  Although I can't speak to
the question of correct use of Latin, I can speak for some zoological
practices.  By no means are zoologists in agreement about dropping the
second 'i' in patronyms.  In a check-list of North American Odonata about
to be published, we adhere strictly to original orthography, so many
patronyms have double 'i', while others have it single.  In recent world
checklists (5000 species, so not a tiny minority group), the double 'i' has
been retained as well.  Years ago I was one of the proponents of dropping
the second 'i' from dragonfly names, just because it was a hassle to
remember which names had one, which two.  But I changed my mind with
further reflection.  If we have rules, we should follow them, and the
"original orthography" rule, at least in this case, seems reasonable and is
accepted by most odonate taxonomists.

In the latest checklists of North American vertebrates, birds and mammal
names use double 'i', herps and fishes not.  Obviously there is
inconsistency upon inconsistency.  Thus it is by no means clear that "most
recent works do not."

And whether some zoologists have dropped the second 'i' or not, it's a bit
shocking to me that your employer considers his own judgment to supercede
the rules of botanical nomenclature!

Dennis Paulson, Director                           phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History                 fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound                       e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416