Dear Harry and others,
When preparing my paper on Personidae (Vita Marina 42(3) 57-103) I
discussed this with both Alan Beu and a person who has been in the ICZN
commission. The person from the ICZN -to my knowledge he is no longer in
the commission since he served many years- recommended to regard it exactly
as Harry puts it.
In his monograph on the Indo-West Pacific Ranellidae Bursidae and
Personidae Alan Beu accepted the specific epiteth "graceiellae" (p. 188)
without further comment.
About wilsonorum, I haven't had the boldness yet................
Gijs
----------
> Van: Harry G. Lee <[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Saul
> Datum: zondag 30 januari 2000 1:13
>
> To Gijs and others,
>
> Excellent perception on Strombus wilsoni. I think it appropriate to
emend
> to S. wilsonorum. Gijs, have you been bold enough to put this in
"hard-copy?"
>
> The D. graciellae certainly is a bit of a neologism. It seems that the
> trivial name can be regarded as an "arbitrary" construct (in part because
> it avoids proper syntax) and will thus be insulated from emendation.
>
> Harry
>
>
> At 09:19 PM 1/29/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Connected to this one:
> >In 1962 R.T. Abbott described Strombus (Canarium) wilsoni after:
> >"This species is named after the australian malacologist, Dr. Barry
Wilson,
> >and also after Mr. Wilson Darwin of Philadelphia." (Abbott, 1962.
> >Indo-Pacific Mollusca 1(7): 455.
> >As far as I can interpret the ICZN regulation as quoted in Harry'snote,
> >this should be considered as an incorrect original spelling, and the
> >specific epiteth should be emended to "wilsonorum".
> >Another one is distorsio graceiellae.
> >This species was named by Mr. Manfred Parth (yes, the very same one who
> >described Bufonaria borisbeckeri) explicitely after two women, viz.:
> >"I dedicate the name to my first wife Graziella Pierantoni (Milano,
Italy)
> >and to my future wife Grace Marcos (Palawa, Philippines): D.
grace(iellae)"
> >[sic] .
> >So, one would expect "gracearum" or "graziellarum" or something alike.
> >But, as more or less indicated, the names of the two ladies are not the
> >same, and therefore the specific epiteth "graciellae" can (?must) be
> >considered as an "arbitrary combination of letters" (ICZN art. 11.3),
and
> >is to be considered as an correct original spelling.
> >
> >Gijs
> >
> >----------
> >> Van: Harry G. Lee <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> >> Onderwerp: Re: Saul
> >> Datum: zaterdag 29 januari 2000 20:42
> >>
> >> Dear Stephanie, Wayne, et al.,
> >>
> >> Thanks to Stephanie, we have another piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
> >According to
> >> the third edition (the fourth is hot-off-the-press, on order, and not
> >likely
> >> any different on the matter at hand)of the ICZN, Article 32(b)
"incorrect
> >> original spelling (can be emended) if... (ii) there is in the original
> >> publication itself, without recourse to any external source of
> >information,
> >> clear evidence of an inadvertent error..." It goes on to cite an
> >example...
> >> "douglasi in Eptesicus douglasi, said to be named after Marion and
Athol
> >> Douglas, is an incorrect original spelling that must be corrected to
> >> douglasorum."
> >>
> >> Although G. B. Sowerby II didn't exactly state he was naming Murex
Saulii
> >[sic]
> >> after Miss Jane Saul, it is quite obvious that he knew of a
specimen(s)
> >of this
> >> new taxon in her (then already famous; now at Cambridge, UK)
collection.
> >> Placing myself in a contemporary readership and considering the
author's
> >renown
> >> as a "shocking latinist," I would argue that Reeve's emendation of
the
> >> specific name to "Sauliae" was "justified" (ICZN-speak for kosher),
but
> >it a
> >> isn't an "air-tight case" (and G. B. S.'s linguistic deficiencies
might
> >be
> >> deemed "irrelevant" to the nomenclatorial argument in an ICZN
> >proceeding).
> >>
> >> I presume the actual date of publication of the original description
of
> >Murex
> >> Saulii [sic] in Proc. Zool. Soc. London was 1841; or was it 1840?
> >>
> >> Did Snyder (1986) actually say he named Latirus anni for his wife?
Can
> >you
> >> provide the reference?
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >> Ref.: Ride, W. D. L., C. W. Sabrosky, G. Bernardi, R. V. Melville, J.
O.
> >> Corliss, J. Forest, K. H. L. Key, and C. W. Wright, 1985.
International
> >> code of
> >> zoological nomenclature. Third edition. Univ. Calif., Berkeley, xx +
pp.
> >1-338.
> >> Feb.
> >>
> >>
> >> At 03:12 AM 1/30/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >> >Hello all
> >> (cut)
> >> >I have copied all
> >> >the molluscan articles out of the Proceedings of the Zoological
Society,
> >> >London (one of my favourite old journals) from its first volume to
> >about
> >> >1855 so far.
> >> >
> >> >And looking at the article in question which is -
> >> >
> >> >1841, Soweby, GB, Jun., Descriptions of some new species of Murex,
> >> >principally from the collection of H. Cuming, Esq. Proc Zoo Soc Lond
> >> >1840:137-147
> >> >
> >> >The name is given as Murex Saulii Conch. Illustr. f. 77. followed by
a
> >> >latin descriiption which is among the more lengthy in this paper.
> >> >He gives the location as: ad insulam Capul, Philippinarum. H. Cuming
> >legit.
> >> >Mus. Saul, Stainforth, Reeves.
> >> > With the following note: It is somewhat surpising that this species
> >should
> >> >not have been distinguished ere this from M. Palmarosae, from which
it
> >> >differs in having a smooth inner lip, and in having small projecting
> >fronds
> >> >on the varices between the larger ones.
> >> >
> >> >It is certainly not clear from the description which is not unusual
for
> >> >this period to indicate who the shell is actually named after. For
> >example
> >> >the preceeding species is Murex Banksi Conch. Illustr, f. 82. with no
> >> >indication of who this might be or any acknowledgement such as for my
> >> >friend etc.
> >> (cut)
> >> >It would seem obvious that Sowerby made a mistake, but from what is
> >written
> >> >it can not be argued that he did and the name should still remain as
M.
> >> >saulii and not M. sauliae or M. saulae.
> >> >
> >> >I can think of an example of this sort of error from the recent
> >literature:
> >> >Martin Snyder named Fusinus anni in 1986 after his wife Ann, the
mistake
> >> >was by the author and the correct name is still F. anni.
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> (cut)
> >> >Stephanie A. Clark
> >> >Invertebrate Identification
> >> >Unit 4/17 Morris Street
> >> >PO Box 418
> >> >Summer Hill, NSW 2130
> >> >Australia
> >> >phone 61 (02) 9799 5689 fax 61 (02) 9799 5610 mobile 0412 372388
> >> >email [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> Harry G. Lee
> >> Suite 500
> >> 1801 Barrs St.
> >> Jacksonville, FL 32204
> >> USA 904-384-6419
> >> <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page at:
> >> http://home.sprynet.com/~wfrank/jacksonv.htm
> >>
> >> oo .--. oo .--. oo .--.
> >> \\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_
> >> `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~`
>
> Harry G. Lee
> Suite 500
> 1801 Barrs St.
> Jacksonville, FL 32204
> USA 904-384-6419
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page at:
> http://home.sprynet.com/~wfrank/jacksonv.htm
>
> oo .--. oo .--. oo .--.
> \\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_
> `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~`
|
