| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Littlebeetle23 |
Posted - 13/04/2014 : 00:25:26
192.27 KB
I think this specimen is Clavobrium zimbabweensis, but I'm not sure.
It was collected in Masese, Western Province, Zambia.
Size 3 mm. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| africaone |
Posted - 21/06/2015 : 18:31:17
You are probably like me, loving the poetic adventure of entomology incuding the naming.
One must recognise that it is not very useful and not universel. If all the species existing are to be described, it will become a real mess.
To be more logic, a digital code must be given to any Holotype and databases contructed on this univesel code.
To rest poetic you can ask to your computer or any else machine or system to translate it in latin letters or any language you like. and nobody will prohibit to make your collection labels or to communicate in any form you like. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 20/06/2015 : 20:08:11
Yess... but we can also think that:
Computer is only a step of our scientific history; in the next times, they will be changed and lost for a new technology we do not even know. For the same reason, should we eliminate parentheses when genera are changed?
I do not think that the gender agreements -us/-us; -a/-a; -um/-um; -us/-is; -a/-is; -um/-e are a big language problem.
According to me, it is more about the denial of a language by some European and American people than an objective difficulty.
I think as well that Japanese, Indian, Chinese people have languages much more complicated than ours; thus, they have no problem to learn these easy Latin rules.
Occident is maybe no longer the center of the World but Occident, not other parts of the World, created Taxonomy.
And for this, Occident used the only language that created the civility in Occident: Latin.
This is a fact. 
Tomorrow, we have more probabilities to write in Russian or in Chinese than in English or in French.
Do you think that we should change Latin names using Cyrillic or Chinese signs? I do not think so.
|
| africaone |
Posted - 20/06/2015 : 17:59:19
art 30 and 31 are how to create a name not if it must be corrected if wrongly published !
the case here falls in 32.5.1 "incorrect ... latinization ... are not to be considered inadvertent error"
but also in art 34.2 that contradicts this and allows to correct the gender of a species group name (in cases of Latin or Greek): "if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed accordingly".
I am not a specialist of the code but I think it is stupid for different reasons
- today databases are managed by computers and computers clearly don't speak Latin. Computer are enough performant with suite of any characters (why to change the original spelling for just an ego problem)
- many non Latin scientists (see Japanese, Indian, Chinese, etc...) are describing new species and it is a little bit latinocentric (or ocidentalocentric) to force them to respect such rules.
these rules were created at another time and it is time to recognise that occident is not the center of the World.
If an author made an error, this error must rest inchanged (the most simple is the way, the most performant it is)
|
| Francesco |
Posted - 20/06/2015 : 15:47:14
I do not agree. An exception to this rule is that:
30.1.4.1. If the author states when establishing the name that it is not formed from, or is not treated as, a Latin or Greek word [Art. 26], the gender is determined as though the name is an arbitrary combination of letters (Article 30.2.2).
Adlbauer did not state that this name was "not formed from, or is not treated as, a Latin or Greek word"; thus, this name must be identified as formed with the name Obrium.
Accordingly,
30.1.1. a genus-group name that is or ends in a Latin word takes the gender given for that word in standard Latin dictionaries; if it is a compound word formed from two or more components, the gender is given by the final component |
| africaone |
Posted - 20/06/2015 : 13:53:50
if Adlbauer described as zimbaweensis it must rest zimbabweensis even it it is not the correct version of what he intended to do !
A wrong use of the Latin grammar is not a cause for changing a name.
This is unfortunetely the same case when a name is mispelled in description ! |
| Francesco |
Posted - 20/06/2015 : 12:29:53
It perfectly corresponds to the original description (Les Cahiers Magellanes, 80: 14-15), as well as to the type.
This species was described from Zimbabwe; thus, it is new for Zambia thanks to your record. 
Note: Adlbauer stated that his new genus has masculine gender, but Obrium is neuter.
Authors can definite the gender only of names missing in the Latin grammar; otherwise, they must follow the Latin grammar (ICZN 30.1.1. A genus-group name that is or ends in a Latin word takes the gender given for that word in standard Latin dictionaries; if it is a compound word formed from two or more components, the gender is given by the final component).
Consequently the correct name must be Clavobrium zimbabweense despite Adlbauer's idea. |
|
|
