Bullock's Oriole (1 Viewer)

The correct name should be Icterus bullockorum

Zootaxa 3718 (3): 295–296 (4 Oct. 2013)
On the correct name of Icterus bullockii (Passeriformes: Icteridae)
R. TERRY CHESSER

[Abstract]

Interesting, but not compelling. Swainson says that he wishes to commemorate "the name of those ornithologists," not the ornithologists themselves. Since they share a name, the genitive singular does just that. I'll be interested to see whether the emendation is picked up.

The one page I can see makes me think about the possibility for suppressing a name because another name is in universal use: can bullockorum be suppressed in favor of bullockii?

Niels

Does this sort of paper make the world a better place?

And to think that Zootaxa reject papers on higher level taxonomy on the basis they constitute unmeritorious checklist housekeeping ...

thomasdonegan said:

Does this sort of paper make the world a better place?

Click to expand...

Thomas, I get the impression that you think it's a load of b*****k's (or b*****ks').

Chesser may be right.

As for changing the English name from Bullock's Oriole to Bullocks's Oriole, I think that's unlikely to happen because the rules for forming possessives like that in English are too hard for even English speakers to follow correctly. For example we already have Woodward's Batis which is known to be named after two Woodward brothers.

Edit: And it appears that I too failed to follow those rules correctly -- I should have written Bullocks' Oriole. Shouldn't I?

If the name was Bullock, then the plural possessive would be Bullocks' Oriole. If the name was Bullocks, then the plural possessive would be Bullocks's Oriole.

Snapdragyn said:

If the name was Bullock, then the plural possessive would be Bullocks' Oriole. If the name was Bullocks, then the plural possessive would be Bullocks's Oriole.

Click to expand...

Bullocks' Oriole should be correct, it is named after William Bullock and his son William Bullock jr.

BTW there were similar name corrections in the past, e.g. Hodgens' waterhen (named for the Hodgen Brothers, owners of the Pyramid Valley swamp in New Zealand). It was described as Rallus hodgeni by Ron Scarlett in 1955 and it was redescribed as Gallinula hodgenorum by Storrs Olson in 1986.

Richard Klim said:

Thomas, I get the impression that you think it's a load of b*****k's (or b*****ks').

Click to expand...

This is a thread which opened up a new perspective for me. I had not previously associated birding with philology.

I believe Melanie's assertion to be correct, if the first declension is applicable. As the noun did not exist in roman times, determining the correct declension could be a subject of a wonderfully useless debate.

The approved "Queen's English" spelling should, I think, be Bullocks's Oriole. I notice, however, that Outlook's spell check objects to this form. It is my understanding that Bullock's Oriole would be correct in American english. Languages evolve and the latest evolution has been caused by the wide use of texting. The bird may soon be known as bulox oriol. That is a step too far, up with which we should not put. (Apologies to Winston Churchill)


By the way this comment contains three intentional gramatical errors. There may also be unintended ones.


Dave

As someone whose name ends with "s"...

I was always taught that "s's" was never appropriate. If you want to refer to my possession, you'd say "Hopkins' book." I was also told that the plural of a name that ends in "s' was to add "es." Therefore the plural of Hopkins is Hopkinses. Which means that the plural possesive would be "Hopkinses' books."

Of course you can make the plural possesive problem go away by using "Hopkins family" or "Hopkins siblings." Then the rules are more obvious.

auchinbowie said:

As the noun did not exist in roman times, determining the correct declension could be a subject of a wonderfully useless debate.

Click to expand...

Useless, yes, but for it to be wonderfully useless, a hyphen would have to be involved.

Jeff hopkins said:

As someone whose name ends with "s"...

I was always taught that "s's" was never appropriate. If you want to refer to my possession, you'd say "Hopkins' book." I was also told that the plural of a name that ends in "s' was to add "es." Therefore the plural of Hopkins is Hopkinses. Which means that the plural possesive would be "Hopkinses' books."

Of course you can make the plural possesive problem go away by using "Hopkins family" or "Hopkins siblings." Then the rules are more obvious.

Click to expand...

It's actually a matter of debate (apostrophe only, or apostrophe s to form the possessive of a singular name ending in s): the AP calls for forming the possessive as you do here, while the Chicago Manual of Style prefers apostrophe s (& that form would save us from having to go back & get the AOU to change the name of Ross's Goose - again).

See: http://www.apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-forming.html

What a waste of time, White-winged Oriole, Icterus loadabullocks, job done, now we can invest our time in some useful research!

Jeff hopkins said:

As someone whose name ends with "s"...
I was always taught that "s's" was never appropriate.

Click to expand...

And yet Gill & Wright 2006 recommends ...s's (and this form seems to be widely followed for patronymic English names for birds).
www.worldbirdnames.org/english-names/spelling-rules/patronyms-and-accents/

It was agreed that if a name contained a patronym it would be stated in the possessive case (e.g., Smith's Longspur), and if the patronym ended with an s the apostrophe would be followed by an s (e.g., Ross's Turaco).

Click to expand...

[However, it's not strictly relevant to this thread, which concerns the honouring of more than one Bullock (without an s).]

Richard Klim said:

[However, it's not strictly relevant to this thread, which concerns the honouring of more than one Bullock (without an s).]

Click to expand...

And even this is doubtful (see post #2 of this thread). Why change a long standing name if we have a reason not to. Stability, remember. I don't think bullockorum will have many followers.

Theo

Jeff hopkins said:

I was always taught that "s's" was never appropriate. If you want to refer to my possession, you'd say "Hopkins' book." I was also told that the plural of a name that ends in "s' was to add "es." Therefore the plural of Hopkins is Hopkinses. Which means that the plural possesive would be "Hopkinses' books."

Click to expand...

The world of ornithology used to follow that rule pretty closely. Then about 15 or 20 years ago the major taxonomies started to switch over from "Ross' Gull" to "Ross's Gull". Clements was the last to make the switch, I think.

Melanie said:

Zootaxa 3718 (3): 295–296 (4 Oct. 2013)
On the correct name of Icterus bullockii (Passeriformes: Icteridae)
R. TERRY CHESSER

Click to expand...

The 4th ed. of the Code is pretty messy on this, which makes the issue quite controversial.

Art. 31.1 of the ICZN explains how names are to be formed from personal names:

31.1. Species-group names formed from personal names. A species-group name formed from a personal name may be either a noun in the genitive case, or a noun in apposition (in the nominative case), or an adjective or participle [Art. 11.9.1].

31.1.1. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is Latin, or from a modern personal name that is or has been latinized, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar.
​

Examples. Margaret, if latinized to Margarita or Margaretha, gives the genitives margaritae or margarethae; similarly Nicolaus Poda, even though the name of a man, if accepted as a Latin name, gives podae; Victor and Hercules, if accepted as Latin names, give victoris and herculis; the name of Plinius, a Roman, even though anglicized to Pliny, gives plinii; Fabricius and Sartorius, if treated as Latin names, give fabricii and sartorii, but if treated as modern names give fabriciusi and sartoriusi; Cuvier, if latinized to Cuvierius, gives cuvierii.

31.1.2. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women; the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive.
​

Example. Under this provision, the species-group names podai from Poda, victori from Victor, and cuvieri from Cuvier are admissible. The names puckridgei and puckridgi may be formed from Puckridge.

31.1.3. The original spelling of a name formed under Articles 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 is to be preserved [Art. 32.2] unless it is incorrect [Arts. 32.3, 32.4] (for treatment of incorrect subsequent spellings of such species-group names see Articles 33.3 and 33.4).​

Example. The species-group names cuvierii and cuvieri are admissible under Arts. 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 respectively, and, if available, are preserved as distinct and correct original spellings. (For homonymy between such names when combined with the same generic name, see Article 58.14).

[...]

Click to expand...

Chesser 2013 (first page) wrote:

Article 32.5.1 of the fourth edition of the Code (ICZN 1999: 39) states, “If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printer’s error, it must be corrected.” An example that followed this statement in the third edition of the Code (ICZN 1985: 69; this very clear example was, unfortunately, not included in the fourth edition) is an exact parallel to the problem described above for Icterus bullockii: “Similarly, douglasi, in Eptesicus douglasi, said to be named after Marion and Athol Douglas, is an incorrect original spelling that must be corrected to douglasorum.”

Click to expand...

...which is a slightly out-of-context citation of the 3rd ed., though. Art. 32c of the 3rd ed. actually read:

(c) Incorrect original spelling.—An original spelling is an "incorrect original spelling" if

(i) it contravenes a provision of Articles 27 to 31; or
(ii) there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error (incorrect transliteration or latinization and use of an inappropriate connecting vowel are not to be considered inadvertent errors); or​

Examples.—If an author in proposing a new scientific name were to state that he was naming the species after Linnaeus, yet the name was published as ninnaei, it would be an incorrect original spelling to be corrected to linnaei. Similarly, douglasi, in Eptesicus douglasi, said to be named after Marion and Athol Douglas, is an incorrect original spelling that must be corrected to douglasorum. Enygmophyllum is not an incorrect original spelling (for example of Enigmatophyllum) solely on the grounds that it was incorrectly transliterated or latinized.

Click to expand...

It seems quite clear that, in the above, the example cited by Chesser illustrated Art. 32c(i), not 32c(ii). Art 32c(i) was not about inadvertent errors, it was about violations of rules of name formation that were stated in Art. 27-31.
Note also, from the Code's Glossary:

inadvertent error. An incorrect spelling, such as a lapsus calami, or a copyist's or a printer's error, not intended by the original author [Art. 32.5.1].

Click to expand...

What the Code calls an "inadvertent error" is when what ends up written in a publication is not what the author wanted to see there. A grammatical "error" in the formation of a name, made by the author himself, is not an inadvertent error in the sense of the Code.

In the 4th ed., Article 32 was deeply reworked/restructured. What we now have is (the bolding is mine):

Article 32. Original spellings.

32.1. Definition. The "original spelling" of a name is the spelling used in the work in which the name was established.

32.2. Correct original spelling. The original spelling of a name is the "correct original spelling", unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5.

32.2.1. If a name is spelled in more than one way in the work in which it was established, then, except as provided otherwise in this Article, the correct original spelling is that chosen by the First Reviser [Art. 24.2.3] (or, if applicable, by an original author when acting as First Reviser [Art. 24.2.4]).​

32.2.2. A justified emendation [Art. 33.2.2] is treated as though it is a correct original spelling (and therefore takes the authorship and date of the original publication [Art. 19.2]).
​

32.3. Preservation of correct original spelling. The correct original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered, except where it is mandatory to change the suffix or the gender ending under Article 34 (for treatment of emendations and incorrect subsequent spellings see Articles 32.5, 33.2, 33.3, 33.4).

32.4. Status of incorrect original spellings. An original spelling is an "incorrect original spelling" if it must be corrected as required in Article 32.5. An incorrect original spelling has no separate availability and cannot enter into homonymy or be used as a substitute name.

32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).

32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
​

32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error.
​

Examples. If an author in proposing a new species-group name were to state that he or she was naming the species after Linnaeus, yet the name was published as ninnaei, it would be an incorrect original spelling to be corrected to linnaei. Enygmophyllum is not an incorrect original spelling (for example of Enigmatophyllum) solely on the grounds that it was incorrectly transliterated or latinized.

32.5.2. A name published with a diacritic or other mark, ligature, apostrophe, or hyphen, or a species-group name published as separate words of which any is an abbreviation, is to be corrected.
​

[...6 types of cases involving diacritics, ligatures, etc...]

32.5.2.7. In the case of a genus-group name or a species-group name first published in a Latin text and which because of the grammatical requirements of the Latin text is written otherwise than in the nominative singular, the spelling of the genus-group name is to be corrected to the nominative singular, and that of the species-group name corrected if necessary.​

[...example...]

32.5.3. A family-group name is an incorrect original spelling and must be corrected if it
​

[...4 cases, all irrelevant to the present problem...]

Click to expand...

Art. 32.5 gives a comprehensive list of the cases where correcting an original spelling is justified under the 4th ed. of the ICZN: inadvertent errors evident from the OD, diacritics or other marks or multi-word names and similar cases, changes to the nominative singular of names published in another case in a Latin text, and a few specific problems affecting family-group names only. These cases do not include a violation of Art. 31. The "very clear example" that Terry Chesser regrets was not just "unfortunately" omitted in the fourth edition. This example is gone because the provision it used to illustrate (the former Art. 32c(i)) is gone. The problem, though, is that Art. 31, contrary to Art. 32, was left basically unedited (almost fully identical to what appeared in the 3rd ed.--to the extent that the references it includes to subparts of Art. 32 still reflect the structure of the latter in the 3rd ed., and are now wrong due to its reworked structure). The result is an obvious inconsistency: on one hand we have Art. 31 that states how it "is to be" done; on the other we have Art. 32 that forbids to correct it if it has been done any other way.

There is a quite clear trend nowadays towards abandoning "useless" corrections of zoological names associated to the rules of classical languages, and abandoning corrections of Latin genitives is quite logical in this context. Furthermore, the wrong internal references to subparts of Art. 32 in Art. 31 suggest to me that the editors of the 4th ed. really did not care at all about the content of this article (they had just rewritten Art. 32 in such a way that Art. 31 had entirely lost its force). Given all this, I tend to give a logical priority to Art. 32 as it currently stands, over Art. 31. Thus my reading is that such corrections are now forbidden (and that any such correction made in the past is now an unjustified emendation, unless the corrected form is demonstrably in prevailing usage). But I know very well others have a different reading.

Laurent -

PS - Independently of the above and whatever your reading of the Code, it seems obvious to me that bullockii is the genitive singular of bullockius, the genitive plural of which must be bullockiorum. A "correction" to bullockorum represents an arbitrary shift from one method of name formation (original name formed under 31.1.1) to another one ("corrected" name now formed under 31.1.2), which is certainly not justifiable.

By coincidence, Doug Yanega (a commissioner on the ICZN) posted this to TAXACOM today:

The only part of the ICZN that might cross that line Robert mentions is 31.1.2 which details how to form patronyms (-i for men, -ae for women, -orum for a group, etc.), which is worded in such a way that it can be *interpreted* to mean that if an author screws it up, the name needs to be fixed. The exact phrasing is "is to be formed by" - not "should be formed by", which would mean exceptions can be tolerated, or "must be formed by" which would mean no exceptions. And if there are no exceptions, there is nothing to indicate what happens then - is the name to be emended, or declared unavailable, or what? (The absence of any such statement is one line of evidence that conformity is not required) As such, there are frequent arguments when one author attempts to "fix" a broken epithet published by another author, citing this Article for "justification". It really does *not* seem to be required by the ICZN, ever, but it can be hard to convince people of this.

Click to expand...

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2013-October/078843.html

Rick Wright said:

Interesting, but not compelling. Swainson says that he wishes to commemorate "the name of those ornithologists," not the ornithologists themselves. Since they share a name, the genitive singular does just that. I'll be interested to see whether the emendation is picked up.

Click to expand...

I can only agree with Rick ...

Swainson wrote regarding this Specie:“ ...the most beautiful of the group yet discovered in Mexico, will record the name of those ornithologists who have thrown so much light on the birds of that country.”

And in doing so he was in fact commemorating the Name (Bullock) itself (in singular, even if he, with this, of course, was thinking of the two collectors; Willam Bullock Sr. and Willam Bullock Jr. – but that´s just the explanation why, not the actual commemoration) ... making the suggested change, as well as this discussion (even if it in parts was interesting), highly irrelevant.

PS. Additional facts regarding the two men behind bullockii will be posted in a near future in the Sub-Forum Bird Name Etymology.