• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Gender agreement (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
AOU-SACC Proposal #489 (Jun 2011): Changes in various species names to conform to The Code (following David & Gosselin 2011).

[Other corrections wrt H&M3 proposed by David & Gosselin 2011: Leptoptilos crumenifer, Threskiornis moluccus, Pogoniulus coryphaea, Monarcha vidua, Calyptocichla serinus, Turdus libonyana, plus several ssp names.]
 
Last edited:
Ever since they claimed that Delichon should be neutral (showing an unexpected confusion between -ον and -ων) I've decided that they just want to increase their citation index with all this work...
 
If the ICZN Code is worth having and I am unaware of any professionals in the field who would disagree that it is, then what might be pointless confusion to amateurs is necessary if the letter of the Code is to be followed.

That Normand David and Michel Gosslin have published several large tranches of mandatory changes to names in single papers illustrates perfectly how far they have gone to avoid being accused of self-publicity. Xenospiza should find some real targets for his "wrath" at researchers finding ways of increasing their citation index (just as some people find any excuse for posting a message here!).
 
Its not pointless because it follows the code? Not really an argument. Just because the code is useful doesn't mean that it's perfect.
Every time there's a name change makes it harder to find information about that species. As many (most?) names aren't really Latin why treat them as if they are?
 
GMK said:
If the ICZN Code is worth having and I am unaware of any professionals in the field who would disagree that it is, then what might be pointless confusion to amateurs is necessary if the letter of the Code is to be followed.
Click to expand...

The provisions about gender occur later in the code than the provisions about priority. Therefore, it would seem that a major purpose of the code is stability -- why is it therefore necessary to change names that have been in usage for a while even if they would not be acceptable if new?

Niels
 
Some of the arguments given above could just as easily be applied to why bother changing genera names if they prove to be non-monophyletic.

Personally, I think these gender issues are trivial, and not really that much of a point of confusion. They should follow the code and make changes where appropriate.
 
Mysticete said:
Some of the arguments given above could just as easily be applied to why bother changing genera names if they prove to be non-monophyletic.

Personally, I think these gender issues are trivial, and not really that much of a point of confusion. They should follow the code and make changes where appropriate.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd argue that ideally we shouldn't be trying to communicate relationships at all with the names - i.e. have another name that stays unchanged for a certain population regardless of how it is classified. If the classification turns out to be non-monophyletic it should be dropped out of use and new names used. Obviously not going to happen, but I think that stability should take precedence over grammar issues in a language that is barely used outside of specialized fields like this.
 
I think my post above came out as more of an argument and less of a question than I intended, so why?

Niels
 
I have seen birders confused by common name changes, or changes in species and genus names. I don't think I have ever run across birders who were confused too much about a species name that ended in a vs us. In general, they knew what they what was being talked about, although perhaps they were unclear on which was the correct spelling
 
While gender agreement has to be followed under the present Code, there's no reason for not discussing the pros and cons of its possible abandonment in a future edition. And yes, there's a considerable number of professionals in all fields of zoology, who would support that!

But not many birders, I'd guess! It would most probably be an "all or nothing" change, which means, that Rhea americana would turn into Rhea americanus (as it was originally named Struthio americanus), just to take a name from top of the list. A change would affect hundreds, if not thousands, of names in ornithology alone.

Rainer
 
I'm afraid I have to agree with Guy and Morgan. If you're going to argue that the scientific nomenclature doesn't need to be 100% accurate then you've not quite grasped the basic concept of the term "scientific". In all cases the accuracy of the name reflects the accuracy and scientific validity of any work that utilises it and gives those that nit-pick - such as govenmental agencies - less room to wriggle out of their obligations ( just one of many good reasons for accuracy ). Plus, if the name doesn't matter then lets move on to ask why bother with accurate descriptions - "It was black and white and it quacked!" = Labrador Duck rediscovered.

Chris
 
chris butterworth said:
I'm afraid I have to agree with Guy and Morgan. If you're going to argue that the scientific nomenclature doesn't need to be 100% accurate then you've not quite grasped the basic concept of the term "scientific". In all cases the accuracy of the name reflects the accuracy and scientific validity of any work that utilises it and gives those that nit-pick - such as govenmental agencies - less room to wriggle out of their obligations ( just one of many good reasons for accuracy ). Plus, if the name doesn't matter then lets move on to ask why bother with accurate descriptions - "It was black and white and it quacked!" = Labrador Duck rediscovered. Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,
That's a nice example of clarity & simplicity - thanks! David & Gosselin have a fine record of getting it right, and thus getting nearer the target of stability. As for name changes, present-day technology should link in any history of affected names, via search engines.

To counter another post, the use of Latin or Latin roots (or ancient Greek) allows everyone in any country to use the same (dead) language for bird names. All languages have rules - unfortunately most of the rules in English are invisible and no longer taught, which perhaps is why birders, as asserted above, become 'confused' by name changes.
MJB
PS Latest lifer Rock Warbler...
 
Last edited:
I don't get confused by name changes (in some cases I think the work by David & Gosselin makes perfect sense - so I did overreact a bit [all too easy on the internet]. The classical languages were my best subjects in school - that's why the House Martin has upset me so much... and I have not yet net anyone who seems to have enough of a grasp of Latin and Greek to explain why it could actually be correct what D&G have done.

There are quite a few cases where it is unclear if a word is a "noun in apposition" or an adjective, and in such cases I would choose to stick with the currently used version, not change it.
For example, I cannot see what clarity is gained by going through all the species with names ending in -capilla and -capillus, which apparently sometimes was correct and sometimes wrong: they should settle for a single "correct" ending (non-changing if it's a noun, changing with gender if it's an adjective, but not both) if clarity needs to be improved!
 
Xenospiza said:
I don't get confused by name changes (in some cases I think the work by David & Gosselin makes perfect sense - so I did overreact a bit [all too easy on the internet]. The classical languages were my best subjects in school - that's why the House Martin has upset me so much... and I have not yet net anyone who seems to have enough of a grasp of Latin and Greek to explain why it could actually be correct what D&G have done.
Click to expand...

'Delichon' is neuter because it ends in -on. How that came to be is irrelevant to ICZN Article 30.2.4:

"If no gender was specified or indicated, the name is to be treated as masculine, except that, if the name ends in -a the gender is feminine, and if it ends in -um, -on, or -u the gender is neuter."

That is assuming that the name is not Latin, Greek, or from any modern European language that has a gender (or certain other conditions). Since 'Delichon' is an anagram, it follows that it is not a word in any language, but it does end in -on, so neuter. If the anagram had been 'Delichno', it would have been masculine.

Keith
 
A variety of names is included here, all suggestive of relationship or resemblance: anagrams (Delichon, Nilaus, Taraba) and partial anagrams (Cryptigata… Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names.

Under the heading taxonym… mention can be made of the use of anagrams (Nilaus from Lanius, Dacelo and Lacedo from Alcedo, Delichon from Chelidon), ... BBOC 1996.

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96679#page/398/mode/1up .
…which is allied to, but certainly distinct from the genus Chelidon, and for which the following anagrammatic name is proposed. Delichon (nov. gen.)
Hodgson in his 1863 Catalogue certainly takes credit for the genus name. (Hodgs. MSS) But Moore first published it. http://books.google.com/books?id=zW8IAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . Page 384.

“If no gender was specified or indicated, the name is to be treated as masculine,” Hodgson/Moore used nepalensis. Is this use an indication? Cecropis daurica nipalensis (Hodgson) is female. Aquila nipalensis is female.

Delichon is an anagram of a Greek word so is it greekish?
 
mb1848 said:
“If no gender was specified or indicated, the name is to be treated as masculine,” Hodgson/Moore used nepalensis. Is this use an indication? Cecropis daurica nipalensis (Hodgson) is female. Aquila nipalensis is female.

Delichon is an anagram of a Greek word so is it greekish?
Click to expand...

'nepalensis' is common gender (both male and female), as are all the other '-ensis' names (the neuter form is '-ense'). Apus nipalensis is masculine. So, using 'nepalensis' does not establish a particular gender, hence the use of the clause that defines 'Delichon' as neuter, even though the Hodgson/Moore intent was presumably anything but neuter.

I suppose one could argue whether Delichon is a transliterated anagram of a Greek word, or an anagram of a transliterated Greek word, but in ends in '-on' either way.

ICZN may or may not have got the best rules, but I think David & Gosselin are interpreting this one correctly according to those rules as they currently exist.

Keith
 
aegithalos said:
'nepalensis' is common gender (both male and female), as are all the other '-ensis' names (the neuter form is '-ense'). Apus nipalensis is masculine. So, using 'nepalensis' does not establish a particular gender, hence the use of the clause that defines 'Delichon' as neuter, even though the Hodgson/Moore intent was presumably anything but neuter.

I suppose one could argue whether Delichon is a transliterated anagram of a Greek word, or an anagram of a transliterated Greek word, but in ends in '-on' either way.

ICZN may or may not have got the best rules, but I think David & Gosselin are interpreting this one correctly according to those rules as they currently exist.

Keith
Click to expand...

Keith,
Nice summary - what about all the kingfisher anagrams of genera? By the way, your post count seems to be stuck on 26 - maybe BF thinks you are neuter?
MJB
 
MJB said:
Keith,
Nice summary - what about all the kingfisher anagrams of genera?
MJB
Click to expand...

You mean Dacelo and Lacedo?

As far as I can tell (and I have not seen the original publications), the former was first combined as Dacelo gigantea and the latter as Lacedo pulchella. As gigantea and pulchella are both feminine adjectives, both generic names are feminine (given that they are anagrams and thus not words in any language). If the adjectives had been indeterminate wrt gender (e.g. nepalensis), both genera would have been masculine, because their endings do not indicate anything else.

Pushing things further back ... Alcedo is a Latin feminine noun, so is feminine as a generic name. Its adjectival specific epithets were also feminine, of course. When Dacelo was formed, gigantea was transferred to it, with no change in the form of the name, so Dacelo becomes feminine (Dacelo gigantea was later synonymised with Dacelo novaeguineae, so the epithet is no longer in use). Lacedo was later formed, as a monotypic genus for the former Dacelo pulchella, and took the specific epithet unchanged. I think it could be questioned whether the authors of these anagrams showed any deliberate action in setting the gender of their generic names - they merely transferred specific epithets, and thus the gender of the Alcedo name was carried through to its spin-off genera.

Keith
 
Now your explanation of why Delichon should be neutral was clear, but if Lacedo and Dacelo can still be treated as feminine because the parent word was feminine, ICZN (and not D&G — I hope my apologies are accepted) obviously screwed up on how Delichon should be treated.
I know I am whining!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MarcellC
My Africa List
Replies
13
Views
5K
MarcellC
MarcellC

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top