[Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit parentheses?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Apr 10 19:01:11 CDT 2018


PS: The key word in 33.2.3 is the final 'but', which means 33.2.3 doesn't stand alone, and one must interpret it in the context of 33.2.3.1

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/4/18, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit parentheses?
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Thomas Pape" <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
 Received: Wednesday, 11 April, 2018, 11:33 AM
 
 This is still a bit unclear: 
 
 33.2.3. Any other emendation is an
 "unjustified emendation"; the name thus emended is available
 and it has its own author and date and is a junior objective
 synonym of the name in its original spelling; it enters into
 homonymy and can be used as a substitute name, but
 
 33.2.3.1. when an unjustified
 emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the
 original author and date it is deemed to be a justified
 emendation.
 
 This suggests that an unjustified
 emendation cannot be used as a valid name without thereby
 being deemed a justified emendation, so, in the context of
 this thread, still no parentheses required (by Art. 51.3.1)
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Wed, 11/4/18, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Does a
 misspelling merit parentheses?
  To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
  Received: Wednesday, 11 April, 2018,
 9:47 AM
  
  >>> By my way of
  thinking, a species group name is
 never going to be validly
  combined with an unjustified
 emendation
  ---
  But why not? An unjustified emendation
 is an available name
  and can be used as a substitute name
 (Art. 33.2.3). This may
  happen when, for example, it is the
 oldest substitute name
  for a senior synonym that is invalid
 due to homonymy.
  
  
  >>>
  A possible problem is if the spelling
 of an unjustified
  emendation is conserved due to usage.
  ---
  This is covered by Art. 33.2.3.1
 stating that: "when an
  unjustified emendation is in
 prevailing usage and is
  attributed to the original author and
 date it is deemed to
  be a justified emendation."
  
  /Thomas
  
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
  
  Sent: 6. april 2018 01:06
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
  Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
  Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does a
 misspelling merit
  parentheses?
  
  There is some
  confusion here:
  
  19.1.
  Unjustified emendations and incorrect
 spellings. An
  unjustified emendation of an available
 name is itself an
  available name [Art. 33.2.3], provided
 that it meets the
  other requirements for availability,
 but an incorrect
  subsequent spelling is not
  
  19.2. Justified emendations. A
 justified
  emendation replaces the incorrect
 original spelling and, as
  a corrected original spelling, retains
 the authorship and
  date of the original name
  
  Article 48. Change of generic
 assignment. An
  available species-group name, with
 change in gender ending
  if required [Art. 34.2], becomes part
 of another combination
  whenever it is combined with a
 different generic name.
  
  By my way of thinking, a
  species group name is never going to
 be validly combined
  with an unjustified emendation, so we
 only need to consider
  the case of justified emendations, but
 Art. 19.2 indicates
  (but not perfectly unambiguously) that
 a justified
  emendation renders the name emended an
 incorrect original
  spelling of the "same generic name",
 which implies
  that Art. 51.3.1 does apply (albeit
 somewhat
  "retrospectively").
  
  A possible problem is if the spelling
 of an
  unjustified emendation is conserved
 due to usage. I'd
  have to think about that a bit more
 ...
  
  Stephen
  
 
 --------------------------------------------
  On Fri, 6/4/18, Francisco
 Welter-Schultes
  <fwelter at gwdg.de>
  wrote:
  
   Subject: Re:
  [Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit
 parentheses?
   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
   Received: Friday, 6 April, 2018,
 11:55 AM
   
   Article 51.3.1 does not come
  into
   play because Limnebius is the
  correct
   generic name that must be used.
   
   However if Limnobius was
  the
   correct name, for example
 because
  this  emendation is in prevailing
 usage, then  Limnebius
  would be the incorrect  spelling, 
 and it would read
  Limnobius punctatus Wollaston, 1864.
   
   This is how I read Art.
  
  51.3.1.
   
   51.3.1.
  Parentheses
   are not used when the
  species-group name was  originally
 combined with an
  incorrect spelling  or an emendation
 of the  generic name
  (this  applies even though an
 unjustified emendation is
  an  available name with its own
 authorship and date  [Art.
  33.2.3]).
   
   It says
   "incorrect spelling", a term
 that is
  not defined  in the  Glossary. Would
 Limnebius be an 
  incorrect spelling of Limnobius in
 such  a  case?
   An emendation intends to change
 the
   original spelling. A justified
   emendation
   is "the
  correction of an incorrect original 
 spelling" (see 
  its definition in the  Glossary). So
 if we use Limnobius as
  a justified  emendation (under Art.
 33.2.2 or 33.2.3.1), 
  this should leave Limnebius  as an
 incorrect  original
  spelling behind us. Thus, an incorrect
 spelling  in the
  sense of Art. 51.3.1.
   
   If
  so, then if we apply the
   Code correctly, we
  could not use Limnobius  as the valid
 ame, if this spelling
  is not in  prevailing usage. 
  
  "Limnobius punctatus
   (Wollaston,
  1864)" would only be possible under
 a  violation of
  the Code.
   
   As a
  consequence I would not find a case
 within  a correct
  application of  the Code where a 
 misspelling would merit
  parentheses. If I have not 
 overlooked or misinterpreted
  something.
   
   Best
   Francisco
   
  
  Am
   05.04.2018 um 23:59 schrieb
 Thomas
  Pape:
   > Article 51.3.1 does not
 come
  into play.
   >
   > Note
  that this
   Article deals with a situation
  where "the species-group  name was
 originally combined
  with an incorrect spelling or  an
 emendation of the generic
  name".
   >
   >
  Wollaston (1864)
   described "Limnebius
  punctatus". Both names appear  to me
 to be correct
  spellings.
   >
   Wollaston
  LATER used the changed spelling 
 "Limnobius".
   >
   > If
  "Limnobius" is an emendation
   it
  is also an available name, and if it
 is used as valid, 
  then the correct citation would be:
   >
   > Limnobius punctatus
 (Wollaston, 1864) 
  >  > /Thomas  >  > 
 >  >
  -----Original
   Message-----
  
  > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
   On Behalf Of Francisco
 Welter-Schultes
   >
   Sent: 5. april 2018
  23:43
   > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does
 a
  misspelling  merit parentheses?
   >
   > I must assist Stephen here.
 Art. 51.3.1 
  should be followed. No matter if the
 emendation was 
  justified or unjustified, and also
 regardless if Limnobius 
  has a different authorship and date
 than Limnebius. A 
  misspelling does not merit
 parentheses.
  
  >
   
   > a). Limnobius
  punctatus Wollaston,
   1864 is correct,
  without parentheses.
   >
  
  If you prefer using Limnobius as the
 generic name.
   >
   > Which I would
  not
   recommend to do. It seems to me
 that
  Limnebius is in  prevailing usage,
 not Limnobius. In this
  point I would  assist Neal.
   >
   > Best
   regards
   > Francisco
   >
   
   >
   >
  -----
   > Francisco Welter-Schultes
   >
   > Am 05.04.2018 um
   22:23 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
  
  >>
   Contrary to what others have
  indicated to you, pleasse refer 
 directly  >> to
  Art. 51.3.1  >>  >>
 '51.3.1.
   Parentheses are not used when
 the
  species-group name was  originally
 combined with an
  incorrect spelling or an  emendation
 of the generic name
  (this applies even though an 
 unjustified emendation is an
  available name with its own 
 authorship and date)'
   >>
   >> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=
   >> 51&nfv=#3
  
  >>
   >> Stephen
  
  >>
   >>
  
 
 --------------------------------------------
   >> On Fri, 6/4/18, Robert
 Louis
  Zuparko  <rz at berkeley.edu>
   wrote:
   >>
   >>
     Subject:
  [Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit 
 parentheses?
   >>    To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   >>    Received: Friday,
 6 April,
  2018,
   7:17 AM
   >>
   >>    In 1864, Wollaston
 described
  the
   species
   >>   
  punctatus in a genus
   he originally
   >>    spelled as
  
  "Limnebius". In a later
  
  >>
     paper, he corrected the
 generic
  spelling  >>    to
 "Limnobius".
   >>
   >>    Is
   this correction enough to merit
 his
   >>    name being placed
 in
   parentheses?
   >>   
  That is, should
   this species now be
   >>    referred
   to
  as
   >>
   >>   
  a). Limnobius punctatus
   Wollaston,
   >>    1864, or
  
  >>
   >>
   b).
  Limnobius punctatus (Wollaston,
   >> 
    1864)?
   >> 
    
  
   >>    Thanks,
  
  >>
   >>
   -Bob
   >>
   >>    Robert
  Zuparko
   >>    Essig Museum of
  Entomology
   >>    1101 Valley Life
  Sciences
   Building,
  
  >>    #4780
   >>   
  University of California
   >>   
  Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
   >>    (510)
  643-0804
   >>
  
 
 _______________________________________________
   >>    Taxacom Mailing
 List
   >>    Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
   >>    http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   >>    The Taxacom
 Archive back to
  1992
   may be
   >>   
  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org  >> 
  >>  Send Taxacom mailing list
 submissions 
  >>    to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  >>    To subscribe or
 unsubscribe via  the 
  >>    Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   >>    You can reach the
 person
  managing  the  >>    list
 at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  >>  >>  Nurturing Nuance
 while Assaulting 
  >>
     Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
  1987-2018.
   >>
  
  >>
  
 
 _______________________________________________
   >> Taxacom Mailing List
  
  >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
   >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   >> The Taxacom Archive
 back to 1992
  may  be searched at:
   >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
   >>
   >> Send
  Taxacom
   mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  To  >> subscribe or unsubscribe
 via the  Web,
  visit:
   >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   >> You can reach the
 person managing
  the  list at:
   >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   >>
   >>
  Nurturing
   Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity
  for 31 Some Years,  1987-2018.
   >>
   >
  
 
 _______________________________________________
   > Taxacom Mailing List
  
  >
   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
   > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   > The Taxacom Archive back to
 1992 may be 
  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org  >  >
  Send Taxacom mailing  list
 submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   > You can reach the person
 managing the
  list
   at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   >
   > Nurturing Nuance
   while Assaulting Ambiguity for
 31 Some Years,
  1987-2018.
   >
  
 
 _______________________________________________
   Taxacom Mailing List
   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may be 
  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
   
   Send Taxacom mailing list
   submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit:
   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
   You can reach the person
 managing the list
  at:
   taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
   
   Nurturing Nuance while
   Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some
 Years,
  1987-2018.
   
  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list