In latin the name ends "a" can be also neuter (plural).
 
Ciao from Italy
Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
 
 
 
>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.