[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[James Doyle]

>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).

Really, you don't have to take three years of Latin in high school or 
even spend hours to learn that the adjective endings -us, -a, -um are 
m, f, n, -is is m or f, and -e is n.  I would just like to see the 
option to change species uninomina that are Latin or Latinized 
adjectives to agree in gender with the preceding clade name if this 
is singular.

Jim

>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.

-- 
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