Cettia cetti + Bulweria bulwerii (2 Viewers)

[Gonçalo Elias]

The Cetti's Warbler was originally described as Sylvia cetti, honouring Francesco Cetti.

Later it was moved into its own genus. However, the genus name is slightly different, ending in -ia, so it is Cettia cetti and not Cetti cetti.

Something similar happened with Bulwer's Petrel: originally described as Procellaria bulwerii, it was then moved into genus Bulweria. In this case, an "a" was added but an "i" was dropped.

There must be some sort of rule behind these spelling changes. Can someone please shed some light on this?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The Cetti's Warbler was originally described as Sylvia cetti, honouring Francesco Cetti.

Later it was moved into its own genus. However, the genus name is slightly different, ending in -ia, so it is Cettia cetti and not Cetti cetti.

Something similar happened with Bulwer's Petrel: originally described as Procellaria bulwerii, it was then moved into genus Bulweria. In this case, an "a" was added but an "i" was dropped.

There must be some sort of rule behind these spelling changes. Can someone please shed some light on this?

The "ia" in the end of genus name means "who belong to" somehow

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

The Cetti's Warbler was originally described as Sylvia cetti, honouring Francesco Cetti.

Later it was moved into its own genus. However, the genus name is slightly different, ending in -ia, so it is Cettia cetti and not Cetti cetti.

Something similar happened with Bulwer's Petrel: originally described as Procellaria bulwerii, it was then moved into genus Bulweria. In this case, an "a" was added but an "i" was dropped.

There must be some sort of rule behind these spelling changes. Can someone please shed some light on this?

Gonçalo, these names haven't been altered due to any obscure rule, they are the Original spellings (thus, no "changes" made) ...

The Genus (alt. Generic name) Cettia was coined by Bonaparte in 1838 (here), with "Sylvia cetti", from 1820, as its Type species, and the Genus (alt. Generic name) Bulweria was coined by the same Author/Auctor in 1843 (here), with "Pr. bulweri", from 1828, as its Type species.

The scientific name, of any single Bird, has two parts (when binary that is, of course), two names, coined separately (even if, as in many cases, in/on the same time/occasion/publication). It's as simple as that.

Björn

 

[James Jobling]

On The Key site, under Conventions, you can find a list of the common suffixes and grammatical standards used in nomenclature (e.g. -ius, -ia, -ium diminutive (comparison); having the nature of; commemorating), and, under The parts of scientific names, the creation and usage of names.
As Björn remarks, the binomens (i.e. the first two names) comprise two separate units (although some have the same derivation or can be tautonyms, e.g. Cinclus cinclus), but neither need be descriptive, accurate or relevant. In the 19th century authors such as Illiger, Sundevall and Cabanis worked overtime in changing what they regarded as barbarous and irrelevant generic and specific names, identifying their outrage by the use of exclamation marks!!

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Gonçalo, these names haven't been altered due to any obscure rule, they are the Original spellings (thus, no "changes" made) ...

Björn, thanks.

I wasn't suggesting that they had been modified (although I used the word "changed"). I am aware that the two parts of the binary name can be coinded separately. The part which is not so clear to me is why it had to be Cettia cetti instead of Cetti cetti (just as happens with Ciconia ciconia which was originally Ardea ciconia). In other words, while the White Stork is a tautonym, the Cetti's Warbler is a "near-tautonym", not a true tautonym. And I was trying to understand if there was any formal rule preventing the adoption of a name like Cetti cetti. Does it have to do with the fact that it is an eponym?

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

On The Key site, under Conventions, you can find a list of the common suffixes and grammatical standards used in nomenclature (e.g. -ius, -ia, -ium diminutive (comparison); having the nature of; commemorating), and, under The parts of scientific names, the creation and usage of names.
As Björn remarks, the binomens (i.e. the first two names) comprise two separate units (although some have the same derivation or can be tautonyms, e.g. Cinclus cinclus), but neither need be descriptive, accurate or relevant. In the 19th century authors such as Illiger, Sundevall and Cabanis worked overtime in changing what they regarded as barbarous and irrelevant generic and specific names, identifying their outrage by the use of exclamation marks!!

James, thanks. Does this mean the the rules for the usage of eponyms are different on generic and specific names?

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

The "ia" in the end of genus name means "who belong to" somehow

But that is not necessary in the specific name, is it?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

But that is not necessary in the specific name, is it?

Not mandatory but it exists : Euprotomicroides zantedeschia for example

 

[James Jobling]

Under the current Code (ICZN, 4th ed., 1999, articles 11.2, 11.3), “A scientific name must, when first published, have been spelled only in the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet (taken to include the letters j, k, w and y) ... Providing it meets the requirements of this Chapter [3], a name may be a word in or derived from Latin, Greek or any other language (even one with no alphabet), or be formed from such a word. It may be an arbitrary combination of letters providing this is formed to be used as a word.”
Provided the new name, generic or specific, is not abusive or offensive, anything that meets the requirements is acceptable. In former times there was more of a free-for-all, with the purists declaring war on those free spirits, like Prince Bonaparte, who treated nomenclature in a more relaxed way.

 

[l_raty]

In principle,

• a genus-group name must be (or be treated as) a noun in the nominative singular;
• a species-group name is a word that modifies the genus-group name (or noun) with which it is combined, i.e, typically it will be either an adjective, or another noun -- which can then be either in the nominative singular case as well (in apposition), or in the genitive case.

It's true that species-group and genus-group names are independent categories of names. Nevertheless, it has been a common practice in the past to 'upgrade' some species names to the rank of genus. (= To name a genus by a name identical to the specific epithet of one of its included species.) Using a name which is evidently in the genitive case (such as Bulwerii, which is the genitive of Bulwerius, itself a latinization of the personal name Bulwer) as a genus name, however, would probably have been perceived as problematic by anyone having some knowledge of Latin. In this type of case, generic names similar to the name of the included species but ending in -ia (or -ius), instead of the patently genitive ending of the specific name, have often been proposed.
The suffix -ia, in genus-group names, may be seen as comparable to the -ia suffix that is often used in country names (Columbia, Australia, Georgia, etc.).
For an example in -ius, see e.g. Rougetius rougetii.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

In principle,

• a genus-group name must be (or be treated as) a noun in the nominative singular;
• a species-group name is a word that modifies the genus-group name (or noun) with which it is combined, i.e, typically it will be either an adjective, or another noun -- which can then be either in the nominative singular case as well (in apposition), or in the genitive case.

It's true that species-group and genus-group names are independent categories of names. Nevertheless, it has been a common practice in the past to 'upgrade' some species names to the rank of genus. (= To name a genus by a name identical to the specific epithet of one of its included species.) Using a name which is evidently in the genitive case (such as Bulwerii, which is the genitive of Bulwerius, itself a latinization of the personal name Bulwer) as a genus name, however, would probably have been perceived as problematic by anyone having some knowledge of Latin. In this type of case, generic names similar to the name of the included species but ending in -ia (or -ius), instead of the patently genitive ending of the specific name, have often been proposed.
The suffix -ia, in genus-group names, may be seen as comparable to the -ia suffix that is often used in country names (Columbia, Australia, Georgia, etc.).
For an example in -ius, see e.g. Rougetius rougetii.

Thanks Laurent for the detailed explanation. This is very clear.