[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[David Marjanovic]

> I think you are misinterpreting  Note 21A.1.  The note begins "When a
 > species uninomen is combined with a clade name that is not also a
 > genus..."  This is the only situation the Note refers to in saying
 > that the ending of the uninomen should not be changed to agree in
 > gender or number.  If a uninomen is combined with the name of a clade
 > that is also a genus, the last sentence in the Note doesn't apply.
 > [...] Would adding that qualification resolve the
 > problem you are seeing in the current wording?

No. I think agreement with non-genus names should be optional as well; 
according to the new Note 21A.1, it is outright forbidden.