[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[Cantino, Philip]

David, I disagree with you on this point.  I think that pluralizing uninomina to agree with plural clade names will create unnecessary confusion for readers.  To me, the main reason for changing the gender to match a clade name that is also a genus name is to avoid unnecessary divergence from the way users of the rank-based code are spelling combinations involving the same pair of names.

Phil


On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:11 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:

>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn