[Taxacom] ICZN Opinion 105

[Könemann, Stefan, Prof. Dr.]

What an interesting thread. I did not expect that many answers, not at all.

I can say that my question has been answered satisfyingly; more than that, I found your answers a most entertaining read.

In my original question, I used a phrase that was somewhat mistakable:

"We would like to name a new species (of Crustacea) after a person, who has supported research on this taxon. However, the family name is rather long, and we do not want to risk suppression of the name (..)"

Here, I meant the family name of the person, not the taxonomic family, and the long family name is to become the epithet. From the many examples all of you have given and commented on, I am realizing that the name I am considering is not that long and awkward, although it is a composite family name that is relatively unusual. 

I don't want to reveal the name here now, but it is comparable to 'Dachs and Palerni', which would become Godzillius dachsandpalernii, if left unmodified (yes indeed, the genus has been named after the famous movie monster!). Compared to some examples of existing and made-up taxonomic names, I believe dachsandpalernii is not that bad at all. The "Monster of Dachs and Palerni" is certainly a name that can be memorized comparatively easily.

Many thanks to all of you for your comments!

Stefan

________________________________

Stefan Koenemann
Interim Professor for Molecular Biology
Department of Biology and Didactics
Science and Technology
University of Siegen
Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2
D-57068 Siegen
Germany
________________________________

Phone: +49-(0)271 740-4474
Fax:     +49-(0)271 740-4182
________________________________
________________________________________
Von: Gary Rosenberg [rosenberg at ansp.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2011 18:08
An: Könemann, Stefan, Prof. Dr.
Betreff: RE: [Taxacom] ICZN Opinion 105

Dear Stefan



You didn't state the length of the name you are considering, so it's hard to judge if you should be concerned. There probably is a point at which a name would be too long, and a petition to suppress it could succeed, but what length is that? 30 letters? 40 letters? 100 letters?



Twenty letters seems to be about the outer limit of normal. Only about 1 in 20,000 specific epithets in malacology is that long:



Lophiotoma friedrichbonhoefferi Oliver, 2004

Pitar roseoprodissoconchus Drivas & Jay, 1990



Gary Rosenberg

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia









-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stefan Könemann
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:25 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] ICZN Opinion 105



Dear Taxacom members,



I have a question regarding the nomenclature of  new species. We would

like to name a new species (of Crustacea) after a person, who has

supported research on this taxon. However, the family name is rather

long, and we do not want to risk suppression of the name as has happened

in the famous case of unusually long names assigned to Lake Baikal

amphipods (ICZN Opinion 105).



Is there a way to find out *a priori* whether the epithet might be too

long or not, thus avoiding suppression of the publication?





Stefan



--

________________________________



Stefan Koenemann

Interim Professor for Molecular Biology

Department of Biology

Science and Technology

University of Siegen

Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2

D-57068 Siegen

Germany

________________________________



Phone:      +49-(0)271 740-4474

Fax:  +49-(0)271 740-4182

http://www.uni-siegen.de/fb8/biologie/fg_zoologie/koenemann



_______________________________________________



Taxacom Mailing List

Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom



The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:



(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org



(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here