[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[Michel Laurin]

I agree with Kevin and Phil on this point. Besides, the number of people 
learning Latin is steadily decreasing, right? So soon, very few people 
would be able to use Latin grammar (at least, without taking hours to 
check rules, roots, endings, and the like).

Cheers,

Michel

On 27/03/13 21:44, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:
> 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.
>
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPN mailing list
>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>


-- 
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Bâtiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php