I wrote:
> geographic adjectival endings like 'iensis' are rock solid.
Well some rocks are more solid than others! An assignment to a neuter
genus requires the 'is' to become 'e'. Thus my assertion was incorrect. But
fortunately neuter genera are not that common.
Why is the code still binding us to observe minor nuances of Latin grammar
such as above when stability of names is so crucial? The new 2000 code
preamble states the advantage of treating original spellings as invariable
(seriously considered at the draft stage) would have been that electronic
searching was facilitated. That the editorial committee did not also have in
mind the elimination of the time-wasting confusions and uncertainties such
as illustrated by this thread is rather surprising.
--
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
http://www.annelida.net/
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://www.annelida.net/
--
