[Taxacom] Code enquiry

[Sean Edwards]

Well, not logically. The "D-" is not redundant because D'Urville was the explorer's name, presumably his family was originally from Urville. The genus was not named after the place, but after the man who was "of Urville", so the genus is quite rightly "of 'of Urville' ", and the Latin ending does not duplicate the "D-".

There must be hundreds of similar names where the apostrophe has been lost anyway. Darcy? Oh, and Tess of the D'Urbervilles aka Durbeyfield.... (for another double "of"). Genus of the D'Urville?

And surely, although Urville might be feminine, I would be the last to suggest that the man himself was anything other than male, and should be treated as such?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sean Edwards, Thursley, UK
email: sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Thomas G. Lammers 
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Code enquiry


  At 11:07 PM 11/11/2009, Simon Tillier wrote:
  >D'Urville, in French, translates into "of Urville" in English,
  >which in Latin is declined as a genitive, ie durvillae because
  >"Urville" is feminine (like "villa") - actually it could (should?)
  >have been "urvillae".

  That makes sense: the -ae was an attempt to Latinize "of Urville" as 
  "urvillae" and THEN tack on the final -a to make it a substantive.  It was 
  the "D-" on the front that is rather redundant, resulting in possession 
  expressed in both the French and the Latin style; "Urvillaea" would have 
  been more logical, I guess.  I suppose it reflects the confusion that 
  non-Francophones (like moi!) have with initial articles.

  Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.