During the discussion on taxonomy some weeks back, it was mentioned that when
a species is named after a person, the ending of the specific name reflects
the gender of the person it was named after (generally the suffix "ae" for a
woman, "i" for a man), regardless of whether the genus name ends in "a"
(feminine), "us" (masculine), or "um" (neuter).  That only seems reasonable.
Therefore, I wonder if someone could explain why a similar system is not used
for genus names.  Practically all genera that are named after people end in
"a", the feminine suffix, even though the vast majority of people with genera
named after them are male.  Is this by ICZN decree?  It seems far too
consistent to have happened by chance.
A sampling of genera named after men:  Abbottella, Adamsiella, Arnoldina,
Bankia, Bartschia, Binneya, Burchia, Chemnitzia, Clappiella, Cokeria, Cookia,
Cooperella, Couthouyia, Crossea, Cumingia, Cuvierina, Dautzenbergiella,
Dunkeria, Ferrisia, Gouldia, Gulickia, Heathia, Hedleya, Heilprinia,
Humboldtiana, Kurtzia, Lamarckiella, Martinella, Morchiella, Newcombia,
Nuttallia, Peasiella, Pelseneeria, Pfeifferia, Pilsbrylia, Roperia, Sayella,
Sheldonia, Simpsonella, Tayloria, Thaanumia, Torrella, Tryonia, Walkerilla,
Zetekia, and many, many others.
There are rare exceptions, where the masculine ending (Pilsbryus) or even the
neuter ending (Stearnsium) is used.  But why the general absence of masculine
endings on genera named after men?  Why not Hedleyus and Sayellus rather than
Hedleya and Sayella, etc.
The relatively infrequent generic names honoring women (Schwengelia, Bushia,
Friersonia) follow the exact same pattern, but here it seems appropriate,
since the ending is feminine.
 
Paul M.