BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3225900" data-attributes="member: 24811">If there are two spellings in an original work, their relative precedence is not determined in this work. The first author to select one of them in a subsequent publication will then establish the spelling that is correct. This author is termed the "First Reviser", his selection is a "First Reviser act".Generally (but see below), an author is regarded as having selected a spelling only if he cited both spellings, and either stated that one of them is correct/must be used in preference to the other, or used one of them as the valid name of a taxon, thereby disregarding the other. The reason for the choice does not affect the validity of the act. It can be arbitrary. (There is a recommendation in the Code to act in a way "that will best serve stability and universality of nomenclature", but recommendations of the Code are not part of the legal text, and no act can be deemed invalid on the grounds that the author disregarded a recommendation.) The author may also have given a reason that is completely invalid under the present Code (for example, that one of the spelling "must" be used due to it appearing "first" in the original work), his selection remains a selection, and makes the selected spelling correct.However, if the author (or one of the authors) of the original work simply uses one (and only one) of the spellings as the valid name of a taxon in a subsequent publication, he is deemed to have acted as First Reviser--even if he didn't explain, and no additional evidence that a selection actually occurred is present. Thus here, if Brehm himself had used one of the two spellings appearing in his original work in a subsequent publication, he would have established it as the correct one.The two original spellings are<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ruppellii, to be corrected to ruppellii, and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rüppelli, to be corrected to rueppelli.</li> </ul>Brehm subsequently used Rüppellii and Rueppellii, both to be corrected to rueppellii: this spelling has the double i of the first original variant, but the ue that must replace the original ü in the second. Thus it is a mixture of both, and identical to neither.</blockquote>

Verification