Adelaide in "Adelaide rosella" Platycercus (elegans) "adelaidae" … (1 Viewer)

Adelaide in "Adelaide rosella" Platycercus (elegans) "adelaidae" …

The long debated, extremely tricky taxon, the so called "Adelaide rosella" Platycercus (elegans) "adelaidae" Gould 1841 (regardless if it’s either a hybrid, sub-specie or specie, valid or not) is a toponym – and refers to the city of Adelaide, South Australia.

This bird was presented for the first time by its discoverer John Gould on the 24th of November 1840 on a meeting with the Zoological Society of London . Gould didn´t reveal anything whatsover of why he named it "Adelaidae" and in its type description (published in July 1841, that’s why its dates varies) nothing more was said, than these rosellas belonged in "South Australia". This created some uncertainty; the capital A indicated that a person was involved and the female ending -ae that this person might be a woman!?

But this was never the case!

In 1865 Gould himself (in his Handbook to the birds of Australia, vol. 2) tried to re-name it with the following declaration:

This beautiful Platycercus is a native of South Australia, and from the circumstance of my having procured some of my finest specimens in the very streets of the city of Adelaide, I have been induced to give it the specific name of adelaidensis." ["from" alt. "belonging to Adelaide"].

Click to expand...

This change was never accepted, although Mr. Gould's original intention was made ever so clear!

But Gould himself wasn´t the first to explain this. The great Parrot Expert Otto Finsch had two years earlier, in 1863, already informed the Ornithological Community that "Adelaïdae" (that´s how he spelled it) had got its name because :

Talrijk in Zuid-Australië, waar zij tijdens GOULDS verblijf zelfs door de straten van Adelaïde vlogen en om hun smakelijl vleesch dikwiljs gegeten werden."

Click to expand...

And I think this quote might be a bit more "juicy"!? Is there any of you all out there that might feel like translating the Dutch quote for me?

If so, please as accurate as possible, as I would like to quote it myself in Swedish. And don´t hesitate to remark on any errors that I might have done transcribing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Not to be confused with the equally debated sub-specie Platycercus elegans subadelaidae, described by Gregory Macalister Mathews in 1912: "Differs from P. e. adelaide in being less brilliant below and in having less red on the crown. Type: Port Augusta, South Australia, No.9896. Range: Port Augusta, South Australia "

"Talrijk in Zuid-Australië, waar zij tijdens GOULDS verblijf zelfs door de straten van Adelaïde vlogen en om hun smakelijk vleesch dikwijls gegeten werden."
"Numerous in South Australia, where during Gould's stay they even flew through the streets of Adelaide and were often eaten for their tasty flesh."

Of course, town names are proper names, hence they can pretty well be capitalized. Using a genitive in reference to a location is much less usual than using an adjectival form, but not incorrect (see, eg, Motacilla flava iberiae [genitive of Iberia], Anthus novaeseelandiae [concatenated genitive of Nova Seelandia, New Zealand], Chlamydotis undulata fuerteventurae [genitive of Fuerteventura], Buteo lagopus sanctijohannis [genitive of Sanctus Johannes, St John's (Terra Nova/Newfoundland)], etc.).

Thanks!

Laurent,
Quick, and correct, as ever!

I think this will close the case.

Adelaide ... over and out!

Björn,

Just a little remark. If a name is commemorating a person and has an -ae ending, this does not automatically mean it's a woman! If the name of that person ends in an -a the author is almost free to use whatever ending he choses. Think of names like Costa (costae and costai are both acceptable). (see ICZN art 31).

Theo

Theo, you are absolutely right!

I guess I was just trying to make "my case" a bit more intriguing. In my entry (in my MS, not in this thread) for "Adelaide" I also mention another adelaidae, that is a female eponym. Just an expression of the writing mind I assume, in hope to catch the readers curiosity. In this case a bit unnecessary, I admit.

There are loads of Scientific names ending -ae, without any women involved.

I´ll try to be more strict next time!

Cheers!

Interesting. Not knowing Latin grammar, I always just assumed they named it after the city.

But of course the city name itself is a female eponym. Wikipedia: "Named in honour of Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, queen consort to King William IV".

Theo is right about -ae endings; even in classical Latin a substantial minority of the first-declension words (-a, -ae) is actually masculine--including proper names such as Numa or Sulla, that designated men.
Genitives in "-ai", on the other hand, do not exist at all in Latin.

l_raty said:

Genitives in "-ai", on the other hand, do not exist at all in Latin.

Click to expand...

But according to the Poda example in art.31.1.2 -ai endings are admissible.

Theo

8669 said:

But according to the Poda example in art.31.1.2 -ai endings are admissible.

Click to expand...

Yes, sure, they are admissible in nomenclature.
But they are a recent invention, and did not exist in classical Latin. There are no 2nd-declension Latin nouns with a nominative in -aus; the only Latin nouns with a nominative in -aus are fraus and laus, both 3rd-declension, genitives fraudis and laudis.

Laurent -

l_raty said:

Yes, sure, they are admissible in nomenclature.
But they are a recent invention, and did not exist in classical Latin. There are no 2nd-declension Latin nouns with a nominative in -aus; the only Latin nouns with a nominative in -aus are fraus and laus, both 3rd-declension, genitives fraudis and laudis. Laurent -

Click to expand...

So although Latin is a dead language, it does not exhibit rigor mortis...
MJB

MJB said:

So although Latin is a dead language, it does not exhibit rigor mortis...
MJB

Click to expand...

Or to put it another way, Latin is a zombie language.