Gary may correct some of this, being more thoroughly up on the latest edition.
Although citation of the author is advised, it is not required for animal scientific names.  Thus, the choice of words or symbols between author names of a multiauthor species seems to generally reflect the preferences and language of the publisher, although the code does recommend a comma between name and date.
At present, only German umlauts are recognized as being of significance for spelling, so that a species name derived from German adds an e instead of the accent mark.  All other diacritical marks are just dropped.  This may change, as a similar adjustment would be appropriate for various other languages.  There is also some difficulty regarding names with ae versus e, etc.  I believe species are currently considered homonyms if they only differ by ae versus e; however, a single letter is generally enough for genera.

So far, I have not been too impressed by the calls for a phylogenetic code.  There are two basic problems.  First, the principle function of scientific names is to give a distinctive name to each species.  The current system does a good job of that, and throwing it out and starting over would require an immense effort while creating a sharp break with the past 250 years of biology.  Secondly, names are not a good way to show phylogeny.  The best way to show phylogeny is with a diagram.  On the other hand, official conventions on how to designate phylogenetic relationships with names could be useful.  Currently, many different ideas are in use.  It is also true that some traditional taxa should be revised to better reflect relationships.


    Dr. David Campbell
    "Old Seashells"
    Biology Department
    Saint Mary's College of Maryland
    18952 E. Fisher Road
    St. Mary's City, MD  20686-3001 USA
    [log in to unmask], 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'.  And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!