Stability of scientific names, was Stability of WG2

From: Curtis Clark (jcclark@mockfont.com)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 03:06:32 EST

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: [OT] CJK -> CJC (Re: Corea?)"

    on 2003-12-16 15:27 Peter Kirk wrote:

    > I'm no expert on this...

    I am. :-)

    > but I thought that species could be transferred
    > from genus to genus as knowledge advances.

    As John pointed out, the epithet stays the same.

    > And presumably obvious
    > spelling mistakes are corrected (contrast "FHTORA" in U+1D0C5), or are
    > you saying that if the first publication had "Brontosuarus" as a typo
    > this error would remain for ever?

    There are errors and then there are errors. Some are correctable, some
    are not, and botanists and zoologists have different rules about this.
    An example that's not entirely OT: There was a Russian physician with
    the last name Эшшолц - a "cyrillicization" of his German family name
    Escholtz. His name was commonly written then and today in German form as
    Johann Friedrich Eschscholtz, the schsch reduplication being a
    reflection of the Cyrillic spelling. He Latinized (language, not
    alphabet) his name (a common occurrence among naturalists) to Eschscholzius.

    He was physician to the Kotzebue expedition from Russia to (among other
    places) California; the ship's naturalist was Adelbert von Chamisso
    (author of _Peter Schlemiel_). Chamisso and Eschscholtz were fast
    friends (and some accounts imply that they were lovers). Chamisso named
    several new species of organisms for his friend, including the
    California poppy.

    In the original description of the California poppy, he named it
    _Eschscholzia californica_, making the genus name the feminine form of
    Eschscholtz's Latinized name (this is a common occurrence). In the
    caption of the illustration of the plant, however, it was spelled
    _Eschholzia_. But for over a century afterwards, most botanists and
    horticulturists spelled the genus _Eschscholtzia_, assuming that both
    spellings in the original description were typographic errors.

    But the rules of nomenclature are very specific about which types of
    errors can be corrected, and, since there is no obvious "correct"
    spelling of Escholtz, *the spelling that accompanied the original
    description must stand*, and the plant is correctly _Eschscholzia
    californica_.

    -- 
    Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
    Mockingbird Font Works                  http://www.mockfont.com/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 04:00:11 EST