[Previous by date - Re: Gender of species names?]
[Next by date - Re: Gender of species names?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Gender of species names?]
[Next by subject - Re: Gender of species names?]
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:14:50 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Gender of species names?
> Linne supposedly considered the genus to be "the important thing," with > species as descriptors. Yes. He considered names like *Felis leo* "trivial names" that his students had invented, and apparently didn't accept them as fully official. Each of his species bears a multi-word descriptive species name. > I see no problem with a species epithet as a > descriptor in the context of the "important" clade address. For an > herpetological example: barbata ("bearded" [?]) works equally well as Pogona > barbata ("the bearded Pogona"), Agamida barbata ("the bearded agamid"), > Iguania barbata ("the bearded iguanian"), or Squamata barbata ("the bearded > squamate"). Hm... this might be a very interesting idea, but I don't completely understand it. In case you suggest to leave the clade addresses as they are, Iguania is neutral plural (like Squamata), while barbata (indeed "bearded") may be the same, but is intended to be female singular... couldn't mean "the bearded iguanian" then. Does Agamida exist as a name, or have you (successfully) tried to make a singular to Agamidae?