Taxacom: Taxacom| Genus name question

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Magnificus can be a genus-group name given that it was treated as a noun 
in the original source, as Stephen explained.

The genus-group name Sander was not made available by Oken in 1817, it 
was a nomen nudum there on p. 1782.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fitem%2F47608%23page%2F608%2Fmode%2F1up&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce5434b889270470dd48708d9dd5414f5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637784176224923468%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DPk0Vu3BIWyWPztAHfMfi4tagh54YE0948IxWeycjHk%3D&reserved=0

If this helps.

Best wishes
Francisco


-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 21.01.2022 um 22:09 schrieb John Grehan via Taxacom:
> I would be interested to have input on judging the validity of the name
> 'Magnificus' which was proposed by a Chinese worker back in 2000 for a
> genus of Hepialidae. The author made no reference to the basis of the name
> (although the moths are quite nice looking and so perhaps it is an allusion
> to this aspect).
> 
> Under current rules, is the name valid? I had a colleague make the
> following comments:
> 
> "The problem seems to centre on the use by taxonomists of eighteenth
> century "modern" Latin, as used for learned discourse, all a bit mixed up
> with medieval liturgical Latin from the Roman church.
> 
> In these branches of Latin it seems likely that as in classical Latin,
> magnficus is not a noun.
> 
> So I can see two "legal" positions, from the ICZN point of view.
> 
> Generic names must be nouns. Magnificus is not by any stretch of
> imagination a noun. As a generic name it is therefore invalid.
> Magnificus has appeared in the lit as a generic name. As generic names are
> nouns, this act has by definition converted Magnificus into a noun for
> taxonomic usages.
> 
> If this ([2]) sounds a bit stretched, consider that many generic names are
> purely artificial. They were not nouns or anything until they appeared in
> the biological literature. So I could make up a name like Rumblustumblus
> (Rumble us, tumble us). It's hard to maintain that it's not a generic name:
> for biological purposes it's now a noun!
> 
> The literature is full of prank names, most of them of course specific.  In
> fact various kinds of pranking go all the way back to Linnaeus)."
> 
> I hope (wish) to get sufficient clarity to determine if it is absolutely
> necessary to replace the Magnificus' name or not.
> 
> Also, why was the rule made that the original word used for a genus have to
> be a noun? In that respect there is a  name 'Viridigigas" but neither green
> or giant are nouns as such. But what do I know?
> 
> John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://lists.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce5434b889270470dd48708d9dd5414f5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637784176224923468%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xF9tozGKy5ZPWXfMiMIP8OHr45rMW%2BWdZI%2BsPJz%2BzNc%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
> .
>