GIL .. BIOSCI/Bionet News .. Biosequences .. Software .. FTP

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Dear all,<o:p></o:p>          Hekaterobranchus shrubsolii Buchanan, 1890, was published after the “British Association Code” of 1842, but before the “Regles internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique” of 1905 and the first edition of the “International Code of Zoological Nomenclature” (1961). One could argue, therefore, that Buchanan was not formally bound by any rules when she erected the name. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Personally, I am in favour of stability in nomenclature. Changing the name of a species from H. shrubsolii to H. shrubsolei after 118 years would mean that inexperienced people looking up the new version on the internet might miss most of the available information for the species. Also, the way I read the rules, they say that the name should not change.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If the name were to be erected today, it would certainly come under rule 31.1.2 of the fourth edition of the “International Code of Zoological Nomenclature” (1999), which points to the name being shrubsolei (although the example given in Article 31 suggests the original author of the name could drop the letter e if she wanted).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> However, Article 32.5 lists “Spellings that must be corrected”, and this case is not covered therein (Incorrect ………… latinization ………… not to be considered inadvertent errors). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Article 33 states “The correction of an incorrect original spelling in accordance with Article 32.5 is a justified emendation ……………………… Any other emendation is an unjustified emendation ……………………”.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So, even though nowadays it would count as an “incorrect original spelling”, my opinion is that it should not be changed. I hope this helps!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Alex Muir.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> P.S. Changing the subject slightly, Hartmann-Schroder synonymised Streblospio shrubsolii of Fauvel (1927), Friedrich (1940), Hartmann-Schroder (1971) and Kirkegaard (1996) with Streblospio benedicti Webster, 1879.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Mr. A.I. Muir<o:p></o:p> Polychaete Research Group, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, LONDON SW7 5BD, UNITED KINGDOM<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Tel: +44 (0)20 7942 5567     Fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5054<o:p></o:p> http://www.nhm.ac.uk//research-curation/staff-directory/zoology/cv-5565.html<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Vasily Radashevsky Sent: 10 May 2008 10:11 To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu</st1:PersonName> Subject: [Annelida] Streblospio shrubsol..ei..ii<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Dear all,<o:p></o:p>     <o:p></o:p>     Buchanan (1890) described new spionid worms from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region></st1:place> and called them after a person who collected the worms, Mr. Shrubsole, as Hekaterobranchus shrubsolii (later referred to as Streblospio shrubsolii).<o:p></o:p>     "shrubsolii", with double "i" at the end, has widely been accepted by taxonomists and was also spelled this way by Olga Hartman (1959) in her "Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World".<o:p></o:p>     My question is should we continue using this incorrect spelling or change the name to "shrubsolei", as it is required by the ICZN?<o:p></o:p>     <o:p></o:p>     Waiting for opinions!<o:p></o:p>     Vasily Radashevsky<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -- <o:p></o:p> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Streblospio-shrubsol..ei..ii-tp17161354p17161354.html<o:p></o:p> Sent from the Bio.net - Annelida mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p> Annelida mailing list<o:p></o:p> Post: Annelida@net.bio.net<o:p></o:p> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida<o:p></o:p> Resources: http://www.annelida.net<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>

Send comments to us at archive@iubio.bio.indiana.edu