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