fieldherping.eu

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:I imagined you've been around long enough to know that Mario wouldn't promote disregarding the ICZN - obviously my mistake.

This is not fair. I asked a few quite precise questions, for anyone to answer, preferably the "god" himself.
(And no, the "god" isn't Mario, to be clear. But he has a rather direct access to Him, which I don't. So I
hoped he would consult him, as he did before.)

Berislav Horvatic wrote:no, the "god" isn't Mario

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:

Berislav Horvatic wrote:no, the "god" isn't Mario

Be serious, I referred to YOUR quite recent definition of "god":

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:the guy who wrote this is more or less a god in these matters

So, in this particular case, Mario can/should be regarded just as the god's messenger. Fair enough?

But still, I expect ANY god to show me the tablets with written commandments, either via his messenger,
or directly. Do I ask for too much? Even greater gods (e. g. Jahveh or Allah) bothered to do so.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:

Mario Schweiger wrote:Bero, no code, no rule, no paragraph! Just simple latin grammar!

You must be joking... Latin grammar can not and does not decide on formal matters of nomenclature.

Although I´m cynical from time to time, or do jokes, why I should do this in this matter?

If there would be no Latin grammar, why species and subspecies names have to follow the gender on the Genus?
Why, if the species name is a noun, the gender may not be changed?
Examples: Zamenis (masc.) situla (fem.) = situla means pot, urn?
Eirenis (masc.) coronella (fem.) = litte crown
and if you would like, many many more.
If you name a species in honor of somebody, why the (sub)species name has to be the genetiv, like Triturus vulgaris schmidtlerorum, Iberolacerta horvathi, aso.?

If there would be no Latin grammar used in species names, why there was a long discussion on the gender of Podarcis, Anguis, etc.?

If you would use "forma" or "subspecies" it would be the same like var(ietas)!

Of course NOT, regarding the subspecies names.

I haven't found a species with "subspecies", but if you would write (like your example) Hierophis viridiflavus carbonarius with ssp., it has to be Hierophis viridiflavus ssp. carbonaria

Have you ever seen a subspecies, where the terminus subspecies was(is) used within the latin (scientific) name?
If so, please tell it to me!

You really mean it?! On what grounds? The "ssp." is usually omitted in zoological trinomens just for brevity.

OK, if it is omitted, why the ssp. name should follow something, thats not existing?

Mario

Bero, sent me an e-mail and I'll give you God's e-mail address so you can talk to Him directly, if you like.

Besides that, I'm in line with Mario's last post.

Yes, there a few descriptions with ssp. within the scientific name (made a search within my database ). Unfortunately all these are in female gender species, except these two:

Triton alpestris subsp. ocellata WOLTERSTORFF, 1934;
Triturus alpestris subsp. graeca WOLTERSTORFF, 1934;

And Triton as well as Triturus is definetively of masculine gender

Mario

In ZOOLOGICAL nomenclature the rank indicator of the infraspecific category (ssp.)
is not required and is routinely omitted as redundant (there being only one rank
below species), but is also not strictly forbidden... or is it?

Have you ever seen a subspecies, where the terminus subspecies was(is) used within the latin (scientific) name?
If so, please tell it to me!

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/fauna/sci-Reptile.html
Amblyrhynchus cristatus ssp. cristatus
Amblyrhynchus cristatus ssp. mertensi
Amblyrhynchus cristatus ssp. venustissimus
Phrynocephalus helioscopus ssp. hotvathi

http://www.nature.british-towns.net/nat ... SID=120745
Myrmica smythiesii ssp. carbonaria

Since in ZOOLOGICAL nomenclature the infra-subspecific ranks varietas and forma are
"unofficial", i.e., not treated by the rules of ICZN, let's see what the BOTANISTS, who
do use them "officially", have to say about it:

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun,
agrees grammatically with the generic name; when it is a noun in apposition
or a genitive noun, it retains its own gender and termination irrespective of
the gender of the generic name. (...)

24.2. Infraspecific epithets are formed like specific epithets and, when
adjectival in form and not used as nouns, they agree grammatically
with the generic name (see Art. 32.7).

Asparagus officinalis subsp. prostratus (not prostrata)
Solanum melongena var. insanum (not insana)

So, what now?
Either botanists are ignorant of Latin, or the Latin grammar does not decide
about EVERYTHING in scientific nomenclature... The rule prescribing whether
an infraspecific epithet should agree in gender with the generic name, or with
the rank indicator (ssp., var., f.), has been postulated.

Well, OK, but if this infraspecific stuff falls outside ICZN rules, it comes as no surprise that contrasting uses seem to exist or have existed? And why dwell on this, if the use of var.s is indeed ancient history? Regardless of how old variety names where conjugated, they'll have to follow the gender of the genus name (when elevated to subspecies, species) anyway, right?

From what I remember, the systematic use of taxa like subspecies and variety are quite different in botany. Thus, cross-adopting nomenclatural concepts or rules between both systems, is imho not useful.

( Note that also above family rank names fall outside the scope of the ICZN, which causes a lot of confusion on higher taxa and (especially) their authorship. This is why we omitted them in our 2010 Zootaxa paper. )

Latin grammar prescribes that an infraspecific epithet (when adjectival in form and not used as a noun)
should agree in gender with SOMETHING, but it can/does not decide with WHAT. It could be either the
generic name, or the rank indicator (ssp., var., f.). That's what I meant when I wrote that grammar does
not solve EVERYTHING, contrary to Mario's claim "Bero, no code, no rule, no paragraph! Just simple
latin grammar!"
The botanists have chosen the former possibility (the generic name) and have codified it in the paragraph
24.2. of the ICBN. Josef Schmidtler suggests us that zoologists had chosen the latter one (the rank indicator),
but does not give any reference. ICZN does not treat the issue at all, as it is "of no concern" for zoology...
So, the question remains: who had made the decision, when, and, if nobody knows that, why should anyone
stick to it?
Yes, Michael, "god knows, so we don't need to bother" is not intelectually acceptable to me as well.
I want to know, I want to understand the reasons and, after all, it's not so damn intricate to require
God's verdict.