[Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit parentheses?

[Adam Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Thomas Pape" <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does a misspelling merit parentheses?


> 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
>
>


I have been following this thread, and have been somewhat puzzled why there 
is a suggestion of an apparent issue of whether or not parentheses are 
required.

As far as I understand the Code, parentheses are required after a species is 
transferred from the original genus it was described in and placed in a 
different genus.

Surely emendation of the same genus name, whether justified or not, is not a 
case of moving the species to a different genus, and thus no parentheses are 
needed.

Adam.