[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[James Doyle]

>Remember also that these combinations of species uninomina with with 
>clade names are not formal "new combinations" as in the rank-based 
>codes.  Using one does not constitute a nomenclatural act.  They are 
>simply, as some people have called them, "clade addresses"--that is, 
>ways of indicating clades to which the species in question belongs. 
>In this context, it makes no sense to change the spelling of the 
>species uninomen to agree (in gender and/or number) with its "clade 
>address", because the uninomen is not an adjective or a possessive 
>modifying the clade name.  Instead, as indicated in Art. 21, it is 
>being treated "as a name in its own right."  In addition, one can 
>list as many of these "clade addresses" as one wishes, and it will 
>often be impossible for the uninomen to agree with all of them.

I guess the thing that bothers me about this is that some uninomina 
are adjectives in their Latin linguistic origin, and as adjectives 
their meaning is exactly the same whether they end in -us, -a, -um, 
-is, -e or whatever.  So maybe continuing to treat them as adjectives 
and changing them to agree with a noun that refers to a larger taxon 
to which they belong (I'd suggest the last in the list if there are 
more than one) should be at least an option for those who want to 
cling to linguistic tradition, if only for esthetic reasons.

Jim

>________________________________________
>From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu] 
>On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [cantino at ohio.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:50 PM
>To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>Subject: Re: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
>
>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.

-- 
James A. Doyle
Department of Evolution and Ecology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616, USA
Telephone:  1-530-752-7591; fax:  1-530-752-1449