Gekko smithii

[Ingo]

Fragen tue ich mich das schon länger, aber nun frage ich mal Euch:
Ist der Name korrekt?
Ich gehe mal davon aus, daß der Artname des gekko smithii eine Widmung an Herrn Smith ist.
Demnach müßte es doch dann smithi heißen, oder?
smithii würde doch bedeuten, daß der Herr Smithi hieß, was ja wohl nicht stimmt.
Also, wie ist das regelgerecht?

Gruß

Ingo

[Heiko Werning]

Re: Gekko smithii

Schöne Frage, vorsichtige Antwort:

1) Entscheidend ist der in der Erstbeschreibung festgeschriebene Name. Mal ein Beispiel aus einer ordentlichen Gruppe: Für die Arten Sceloporus jarrovi(i) und S. poinsetti(i) kursieren beide Schreibweisen (mit und ohne Doppel-i), richtig ist aber nur S. jarrovii und S. poinsetti wg. Erstbeschreibung.

2) Wie kommt´s zum Doppel-i? Habe ich neulich mal nachgefragt, kann es mangels altsprachlicher Bildung (trotz Latinum) aber jetzt nur etwas stümperhaft und verkürzt sagen: Das Doppel-i ist bei exakter Latinisierung der richtige Genitiv, da sozusagen doppelt "genitiviert" werden muss. Zunächst bei der Latinisierung des Personennamens, anschließend noch grammatikalisch, da der Artname sich ja auf den Gattungsnamen bezieht (Jarrovs Stachelleguan - auch im Deutschen ein Genitiv). Verzichtet der Erstbeschreiber auf die Latinisierung und behält den Personennamen sozusagen im Original, dann reicht halt das "normale" Genitiv-i.

Was zu der Frage führt, ob korrekt dann nicht eigentlich ii-Endungs-Namen lateinisch ausgesprochen (smit-ti-i), einfach-i-Namen dagegen in der Originalsprache (smith-i mit engl. th) usgesprochen werden müssten? Naja, wollen wir mal nicht übertreiben für heute...

Allet klar?
Grüße,
Heiko.



[Editiert von Heiko Werning am 27-01-2004 um 15:25 GMT]

[Holger Vetter]

Re: Re: Gekko smithii

Hallo Ingo und Heiko,

das mit dem doppelten oder einfachen i hängt davon ab, wie man den Namen der durch die Namensgebung geehrten Person latinisiert (ins Lateinische überträgt). Dazu gibt es einen recht aufschlussreichen Artikel von Peter Pritchard bzgl. Chelonia mydas agassizii im Marine Turtle Newsletter. Wenn man den Namen "Smith" nimmt, kann man ihn im Lateinischen sowohl "Smithus" als auch "Smithius" nennen. Im ersteren Fall müsste eine Art, die nach Smith benannt wird, "smithi" heißen, im letzteren Fall "smithii". Die derzeit gültige Version der Internationalen Regeln für Zoologische Nomenklatur lässt beide Schreibweisen zu. Ich persönlich bevorzuge immer die Schreibweise, für die sich der Erstbeschreiber der jeweiligen Art ursprünglich einmal entschieden hat, auch wenn dies zugegegebenermaßen zu Lasten der Einheitlichkeit geht.

Viele Grüße

Holger

[Heiko Werning]

Re: Gekko smithii

Jau, Holger, so war´s. Wobei die Smithius-Variante offenbar die altsprachlich korrektere wäre, wenn ich mich recht entsinne.
Aber dass man quasi hinterher die freie Wahl hat, glaube ich dann doch nicht, oder? Also der Erstbeschreiber entscheidet sich für eine Variante, und die isses dann, oder nicht? Lass nicht mein nomenklatorisches Weltbild wackeln...

Beste Grüße,
Heiko.

[Holger Vetter]

Re: Gekko smithii

Hallo Heiko,

tschuldigung, es war Lepidochelys kempii, nicht Chelonia mydas agassizii. Du hast tatsächlich Recht. Die von Pritchard geäußerte Ansicht hat offenbar keinen Eingang in die Nomenklaturregeln gefunden. Ich habe mich in den trockenen Stoff etwas vertieft, und die Kommentierung zu den Artikeln 31 ff (insbesondere 33) sagt eindeutig aus, dass auch in einem solchen Falle die Entscheidung des Erstbeschreibers zählt. Wieder was dazu gelernt.

Beste Grüße

Holger

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1996. How Many I's in Kempi(i)? They're All Wrong Or All Right. Marine Turtle Newsletter 72:10-13.


HOW MANY I's IN KEMPI(I)?
THEY'RE ALL WRONG OR ALL RIGHT
In recent issues of the Marine Turtle Newsletter, Witzell (1994) and Crombie and Zug (1994) have presented brief analyses of the question of how many "i"s there should be in (Lepidochelys) kempi(i) [Kemp's ridley sea turtle], and arrived at opposite conclusions. Neither gave a hint of the frustrating complexity of this issue.

(1)Witzell was incorrect in claiming that Garman (1880) had described the ridley as Lepidochelys(Colpochelys) kempii. In fact, Garman gave the species two different names in this paper (i.e., Thalassochelys Kempii and Colpochelys Kempii) and the confusion was further compounded by his statement that he was proposing Colpochelys as a subgenus, yet rendering the name in binomial form as if it were a full genus.

(2)Garman (1884a,b) had two further occasions to refer to Kemp's ridley, and he used the combinations Colpochelys kempi in the former and both Colpochelys Kempii (p.295) and Thalassochelys (Colpochelys) kempii (p.301) in the latter. It is not possible at this point to determine which of these papers was published first, so it is unclear which of the papers constitutes "action by the first reviewer."

(3)The Code of Zoological Nomenclature indeed indicates in Article 31a that patronymic group names follow the Rules of Latin Grammar. But this, too, is an ambiguous requirement. To follow the forms of classical Latin, names that already have a Latin form would make the genitive singular case by conversion of -a to -Dae; of -Dus to -Di; of -Dis to -Dis or -idis; of -u to -us, etc. Even names of male scientists or other honorees that ended in -a (e.g., Brongersma, Herrera) would take the -ae genitive form in classical Latin, it being perfectly acceptable for a noun to be feminine in form but masculine in meaning (e.g., nauta, nautae -- a sailor).

Postclassical, or Philistine, Latin is different; for example patronyms based upon the men whose names end in -a are often rendered as -ai (e.g., Kinosternon herrerai, Bufo brongersmai), and the -ae ending would then be reserved for female honorees, whatever original ending their name may have according to Article 31a(ii) of the Code.

The derivation of a genitive singular form from a modern surname that is not in Latinized form requires two steps: the name must be rendered as a Latin nominative singular, and then converted to the genitive case. Thus, the name Smith could be arbitrarily Latinized to either Smithus or Smithius -- or, if Smith were a woman, to Smitha. The respective genitive cases would be smithi, smithii, and smithae, although in Classical Latin the -ius ending is often reduced to -i rather than to -ii in the genitive case, with -ii being normal in Postclassical Latin. Names that already ended in -ius without further Latinization (e.g., Cornelius, Fabius) would normally take the -ii form in the genitive case (the letters of course replacing, rather than being added to the original -ius ending), as would names that end in -i such as Vanzolini and Bonarelli, that would take the forms Vanzolinius and Bonarellius, respectively, in the Latinized nominative.

Crombie and Zug (1994) appropriately noted Article 32 (c,d) of the Code of Nomencla-ture, indicating that "the original spelling of a species-group name... is to be preserved unless it is incorrect." One could argue, however, that Garman may have recognized his original name as incorrect in some way, in that he did change the original from Kempii to kempi in one of his subsequent papers (Garman, 1884a). Certainly the substitution of a lower-case "k" for the "K" in the original represents an apparent attempt at alignment with the protocols of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but the motives are speculative, and it is also possible that Garman was simply careless and inconsistent; certainly he did not explicitly state that he was deliberately changing the original name.

A very early name, Testudo mydas minor Suckow, 1798, may well apply to a ridley of some sort, and was at one time a potential threat to the stability of ridley nomenclature. The type locality for this form (Blanco, or Cap Blanco) was either Cape Blanco in Pacific Costa Rica, or Isla Blanquilla off the coast of Venezuela (see Brongersma, 1961 for discussion). In either case, zoogeographic considerations would suggest olivacea rather than kempii. Mertens and Wermuth (1961) petitioned the ICZN for suppression of the name minor, and this petition was successful (ICZN, 1963). In that minor was at the time considered a threat to the stability of the name kempii rather than to the name olivacea (Wermuth and Mertens, 1961), the ICZN formally issued its Opinion 660, establishing that kempii was thenceforth the unchallengable specific name for Kemp's ridley, and placing it on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Name No. 1903). The ICZN is answerable only to itself and can waive its own Rules when it sees fit, so this should have been a definitive settlement of the matter.

Officially mandated specific names can only be modified if the species is reallocated by a subsequent reviewer to a different genus, of different gender from the original. Thus, for example, Testudo euphratica became Trionyx euphraticus (and later Rafetus euphraticus). The only way an Official species name could be removed from the list would be if the species itself were found to be biologically spurious in some way -- for example, if it were determined that Kemp's ridley was a hybrid between two other species. A conservative interpretation of the Rules would suggest that the genitive form kempii, whose ending requires no change whether linked with a masculine, feminine or neuter generic name, should be subject to no further modification of any kind.

Nonetheless, this debate has continued fitfully. Bons and Girot (1962) argued that the correct form of the species-group name for Kemp's ridley (which they called Lepidochelys olivacea kempi) should have a single -i only, and Burger (1974) also made the argument that -ii endings should be modified to -i. Furthermore, in a prestigious recent review of the biology of Kemp's ridley, M†rquez (1994) justified use of the form kempi by arguing that the double-i ending was not clearly justified in modern nomenclature, that the use of a single i was more appropriate and saved unproductive research and effort, and noted also that kempi was a masculine patronym, formed in full accordance with the rules of Latin Grammar.

Smith et al. (1971) finally made a petition to the ICZN to the effect that any species group name originally published with an -i or an -ii may be subsequently spelt with either termination, the two forms being considered nomenclatorially equivalent and equally acceptable homonyms. Already, the Code (Article 58, 12) had ruled that endings of -i and -ii, or -ae and -iae, come under the heading of "Variant spellings deemed to be identical." The proposal of "equal acceptability" was positively received by the Editorial Committee of the ICZN, who incorporated it in their 1977 recommendations (ICZN, 1977 p.171). This proposal was accepted by the delegates to the July 1990 meeting of the ICZN. "It was agreed that in the case of species group patronyms that terminate in -ii or -i, either spelling would be admissable regardless of the original spelling (e.g., petersii or petersi; boyliior boyli)" (Savage, 1990).

If this recommendation is incorporated into the 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, then you will be able to use whichever form of the name you like.

Acknowledgements: I thank Hobart M. Smith, George R. Zug and Jay M. Savage for reviewing the manuscript and making invaluable suggestions; but the precise sequence of arguments and interpretations presented above is my responsibility alone.

Bons, J. and B. Girot. 1962. Clé illustré des reptiles du Maroc. Trav. Inst. Sci. Cherifien (zool.) No. 26:1-62.

Brongersma, L. D. 1961. Notes upon some sea turtles. Zool. Verhand. Leiden 51:1-46.

Burger, W. L. 1974. Please use one "i" to end the name Agkistrodon blomhoffi. The SNAKE 6(1974):54.

Crombie, W. N. and G. R. Zug. 1994. kempii is the correct spelling for Kemp's ridley turtle. Marine Turtle Newsletter 67:2.

Garman, S. 1880. On certain species of Chelonioidae. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 6(6):123-126.

Garman, S. 1884a. The North American Reptiles and Batrachians. A list of the species occurring north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, with references. Bull. Essex Institute 16 (1,2,3):1-46.

Garman, S. 1884b. The Reptiles of Bermuda. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 25:285-303.

ICZN. 1963. Opinion 660. Suppression under the Plenary Powers of seven specific names of turtles (Reptilia, Testudines). Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20(3):187-190.

ICZN. 1977. The international code of Zoological Nomenclature: proposals for substantive amendments put forward by the Editorial Committee of the Commissions Z.N.(G.) 182. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 34(3):167-175.

Márquez M., R. 1994. Sinopsis de datos biologicos sobre la tortuga lora Lepidochelys kempi Garman, 1880). FAO Sinopsis sobre la Pesca, No. 152:i-vi, 1-141. México, D.F.

Mertens, R. and H. Wermuth. 1961. Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress eight specific names of Turtles (Reptilia, Testudines). Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 18(3):211-213.

Savage, J. M. 1990. Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Herp. Review 21(3): 55-57.

Smith, H. M., L. C. Stuart and R. Conant. 1971. Request for revision of the 1964 Code to permit valid emendation of certain -ii endings in patronyms. Z.N.(S.) 1913. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 27(5/6):250-252.

Wermuth, H. and R. Mertens. 1961. Schildkröten, Krokodile, Brückenechsen. Jena. 422 pp.

Witzell, W. N. 1994. kempii vs. kempi: the correct spelling for the Kemp's ridley. Marine Turtle Newsletter 66:5.

P. C. H. PRITCHARD, Florida Audubon Society, 460 Hwy 436 #200, Casselberry, Florida 32707 USA.

[Ingo]

Re: Gekko smithii

Danke, das klärt zumindest teilweise.
Smithius leuchtet mir ein-wenngleich ichs blöd finde.

Vielleicth habe ich es nicht ganz kapiert. Wei heißt denn demnach zB das Heimchen, Acheta domesticus oder domestica (von Linné glaube ich als Gryllus domesticus beschrieben und war Acheta nicht sächlich? (demesticum?)

Gruß

Ingo

[paul k]

Re: Gekko smithii

Moin moin,

ich meine mich zu erinnern das Acheta übersetzt Sänger bedeutet, die männliche Form domesticus ist also schon richtig.

Grüsse,

Paul