Hi Harry and all -
Is this a case of 'gender' - male, female, other? [ if we didn't have
enough to find out already ]
I was reading my new book 'Shells' by M. Bouchet - and stumbled into
some of that in naming.
I'm not a Latin student nor a taxo- or is that taxi- -nomist :-) and
can't say for sure.
Hope you enjoyed my play on words.
Martin
Harry G. Lee wrote:
> Dear Listers,
>
> Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli wrote me off-list (below) and I responded
> to him likewise. However, I think his analysis warrants access to a
> wider audience. Earlier today I wrote him:
>
> "While your explanation is probably sufficient to allow /Helix
> brocheri/ to stand as a correct original spelling, certainly Louis
> Pfeiffer wasn't consistent in his dropping of the Hispanic terminal
> "o" in his transliterations. One doesn't have to go far to find
> evidence: 14 pages later he treats /Cylindrella coronadoi/ [sic] L.
> Pfeiffer, 1863, named for Dr. Coronado (d. 1881) and in another 25,
> /Cistula jimenoi/ [sic] L. Pfeiffer, 1864, named for another resident
> of Cuba, Francisco Fuentes Jimeno (1825-1891).
>
> "Wait a minute .... four pages before /H. brocheri/, Pfeiffer treats
> /Helix polillensis/ L. Pfeiffer, 1861, which is based on Polillo, a
> place name (island, municipality) in the Philippines."
>
> I think I'll vote with Riccardo and put the matter to rest. Short
> version /Polymita brocheri/ L. Pfeiffer, 1864); Arango's "brocheroi"
> is an unjustified emendation.
>
> Harry
>
>
> At 02:26 AM 8/10/2008, you wrote:
>> brocheroi is an unjustified emendation.
>> Pfeiffer latinized Brochero name in Brocherus so
>> genitive brocheri is correct.
>> Ciao
>> Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
>>
>>> Dear Alan and Paul,
>>>
>>> I have the original description of this species (L. Pfeiffer, 1864:
>>> 237-238; pl. 61, figs. 7, 8; see convoluted concordance for the
>>> masterwork below). In this description Pfeiffer, who cited a letter
>>> from his friend Juan Cristóbal Gundlach (1810-1896) in which the
>>> latter indicated that Dr. Nicolás José Gutiérrez (1800-1890) had a
>>> name in manuscript intended to honor General Don Gregorio Brochero
>>> [sic].
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why Pfeiffer used the "brocheri" spelling, of if
>>> Arango's emendation to "brocheroi" is justified under Article 32.5
>>> of the Code (ICZN, 1999: 39-40). However, a relevant example is
>>> given in Article 32.5.1.1: "If an author in proposing a new
>>> species-group name were to state that he or she was naming the
>>> species after Linnaeus, yet the name was published as ninnaei, it
>>> would be an incorrect original spelling to be corrected to linnaei."
>>> This process is termed a "mandatory change" of an "incorrect
>>> original spelling." However, I think scholars might consider the
>>> brocheri to brocheroi situation to be slightly different. To
>>> paraphrase: Is brocheri an incorrect or correct original spelling,
>>> and is brocheroi a justified (mandated) or unjustified emendation
>>> (incorrect subsequent spelling)?
>>>
>>> To curtail a possible argument, I believe that the original
>>> (brocheri) spelling is actually more frequent in the literature,
>>> that one could not invoke Article 33.3.1, which permits an incorrect
>>> subsequent spelling that is in "prevailing usage" to be preserved
>>> and deemed the correct original spelling.
>>>
>>> As this forum has witnessed before, a reading of the Code doesn't
>>> always clarify a nomenclatorial problem. Maybe someone else can give
>>> a finer tune on this one.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature, 1999.
>>> International code of zoological nomenclature fourth edition. pp.
>>> 1-306 + i-xxix.
>>>
>>> Pfeiffer L. [ed. vol. 5], 1854-79. Novitates Conchologicae. Series
>>> Prima. Mollusca Extramarina Beschreibung und Abbildung neuer oder
>>> kritischer Land- und Süsswasser-Mollusken (Mit Einschluss der
>>> Auriculaceen). 5 volumes. Theodor Fischer, Cassel. [full collation
>>> by Johnson, 1969]
>>>
>>> Vol. 1. 1854-1860: 1- 138 pp + pls. 1-36 [issued in twelve parts
>>> 1860 to May, 1860].
>>> Vol. 2. 1860-1866: 139-300 + pls. 37-72 [issued in twelve parts
>>> Sept., 1860 to July, 1866].
>>> Vol. 3. 1867-1869: 301- 510 + pls. 73-108 [issued in twelve parts
>>> Sept., 1866 to Nov., 1869].
>>> Vol. 4. 1870-1876. 1-171 + pls. 109-137 [issued in thirteen parts
>>> 1870 to 1876].
>>> Vol. 5. 1876-1879. 1-197 + pls. 138-159 [issued in nine parts 1876
>>> to 1879; parts 50-52 (1-38 + pls. 138-144; 1876-1877) and 58
>>> (175-197 + pls. 149-159; 1879) by E. von Martens; parts 53-57
>>> (39-174 + pls. 145-148; 1878) by O. Boettger].
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Conchologists List [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Paul Monfils
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:20 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: [CONCH-L] brocheri or brocheroi?
>>>>
>>>> A Cuban Polymita - brocheri? or brocheroi? Which is correct? Thanks.
--
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
