Posted by viktor j nilsson on 27-12-2009 19:57
#20
Hi,
great posts, Stephen. My post mainly refers to the -myia/-mya business and deals more with nomenclature than with greek and latin. I agree in your interpretation, that all these authors have had their own personal suffixes that they used to say the same thing, in this case "-fly". Also, -myia would then be the "correct" way to latinize this. However, I think we should be happy that the code of zoological nomenclature isnīt too picky about the latinization of valid names, and it is rather clear that we are going to keep the original spelling if they are not obviously caused by errors in the printing process.
Since you mention the "taxonomy police" and express a fear that Anthomyza would become a synonym of Anthomyia (the horror!), it might be comforting to bring up a good example of why this wonīt happen.
Take for example Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy 1830.
Agazzi (1846), who obviously was really good at latin, realized that R-D wanted to say -fly, tnat is, -myia, and made an attempt to "correct" R-Dīs sloppy latinization, proposing that the name should be spelled Graphomyia, and correctly stated that R-D originally spelled it Graphomya. This is, formally, the proper way to amend a name, that is, change it forever. If amendations are correct, this would simply have ment that in the future, the genus would have been called Graphomyia - keeping the original auctor and year, namely R-D 1830. However, Agazziīs amendation is
not justified. Agazzi did not agree with R-Dīs usage of latin - but that is not enough to change a name.
From the ICZN:
32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).
32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
Examples. 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. Enygmophyllum is not an incorrect original spelling (for example of Enigmatophyllum) solely on the grounds that it was incorrectly transliterated or latinized.
And...
33.2.3. Any other emendation is an "unjustified emendation"; the name thus emended is available and it has its own author and date and is a junior objective synonym of the name in its original spelling
Hence, Graphomyia Agazzi 1846 is an unjustified emendation and becomes an invalid junior homonym of Graphomya R-D 1830.
However, in some cases even such unjustified emendations might be maintained and validated, that is if they have become widely used:
33.2.3.1. when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation.
But... there is no way this is going to happen with Anthomyza!
Edited by viktor j nilsson on 27-12-2009 20:00