Latin Names

[jeff]

Quick question, i've just been matching two different british lists and found a few that didn't match up under latin names (which i thought would be the same)

Eg. House Martin

This is listed on one list as Delichon urbicum and on the other it's Delichon urbica

Which is correct, or are they both correct? and why ;-) ?

[robinm]

In the case of House Martin Delichon urbicum is correct. See here http://www.bou.org.uk/blchanges031218.pdf for when it changed.

I am not sure exactly why it changed.

[Capercaillie71]

The different endings to the species name relate to the gender of the generic name. Someone must have decided that Delichon was a masculine noun rather than a feminine one (if I've got that the right way round).

[Xenospiza]

The powers-that-be (e.g. the BOU) have decided to believe David & Gosselin in that the anagram Delichon is neutral, so it should be Delichon urbicum.

However, I am inclined to believe that the former treatment (in which Delichōn is treated as feminine, because Chelidōn (Greek for Swallow) is feminine) is correct, but I have failed to convince anyone... even though we now face a break in continuity, and widespread confusion.
The ō represents an omega, and I believe there are few Greek words ending in -ōn (omega-nu) that are neutral (unlike -on (omikron-nu), which is neutral).

I think Alcedo and its anagram Dacelo (both feminine) prove that gender isn't necessarily changed when you make an anagram...

[Capercaillie71]

Yes, sorry, the adjective ending '-um' is neutral, '-a' is feminine and '-us' is masculine.

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Adjective.html

[jeff]

Many thanks for all the explanations, guess this happens quite often then :-?

[cuckooroller]

JH,
You can throw also Lacedo into the mix, also feminine. I don't know about widespread confusion. I don't think there are just that many people interested in the rather abstruse argumentations involved in dealing with ICZN rules, and conferring correct gender to these generic names. For most, including myself, David & Gosselin did a pretty good job and I don't want to search for the hair in the haystack. Just as long as someone decides and that it stays that way! However, I do wonder what effect the volume by Gill & Wright (which I will buy shortly) will have on currently accepted nomenclature.

[Xenospiza]

I think David and Gosselin did an admirable job in ending confusion in some genera that were treated as one gender by one author, and another by another (Cisticola and Zosterops spring to mind). But I also think that changing a name that has always been used because it might have grammatical preference (according to D&G) is taking it too far.
Of course it would not be advisable to change it all back again... and I would not advocate that. But I'm willing to be quite stubborn (and repeat my concerns) in some cases where I think their reasoning is flawed – the burden of a classical education!

[alcedo.atthis]

"Lacedo into the mix, also feminine
Alcedo and its anagram Dacelo (both feminine)"


Excuse me!! there is nothing feminine about me. I have all the accoutrements to prove it, so the rumours are quite untrue, I’ll have you know!.





Regards



Malky