[Syrphidae] FW: genera gender list and database storage

[Francis Gilbert]

From: Douglas Yanega [mailto:dyanega at gmail.com]
Sent: 04 January 2021 19:20
To: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage

On 1/1/21 5:59 AM, Bastiaan wrote:
Hi all,

Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)

A new years question:

I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?

I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the + specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent. Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current accepted name.

I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?

As example where the specific_name changes:

Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria

In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites gbif inaturalist etc.)



As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I can perhaps offer some help here:

(1) If you do not have a hard copy of the Code - and even if you DO - the most up-to-date version is the online version, accessible here:

https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/the-code-online/

PLEASE NOTE: the online version incorporates a small number of significant changes that have occurred since the last hard copy version printed in 1999, so it is generally recommended to refer to the online version.

(2) The nomenclatural gender of a genus is often, but not always, easily inferred. Sometimes, upon investigation, it proves to be in direct conflict with prevailing practice. The rules governing the methodology for determining the gender of a genus are given in Article 30. Note in particular the exceptions in Art. 30.1.4, some of which are arbitrary, and not strictly in keeping with grammar (e.g., how to treat names ending in "-odes").

(3) The nomenclatural status of a species epithet is governed by Article 31, and may be rather difficult to establish with certainty; taxonomists commonly make errors. A case in point is the name you refer to above: "laternarius" is not an adjective, it is a noun. Therefore, the correct formation under the ICZN is "Leucozona laternarius"; this is true, and must be adhered to, regardless of prevailing usage by dipterists. Technically speaking, under the Code, variant spellings that are variant only in the sense of gender are NOT different spellings. In other words, if people are presently using "Leucozona laternaria" the change to "Leucozona laternarius" is not a change in spelling; it does not require any annotation, it does not have any authorship, and (perhaps most importantly) the spelling "laternaria" cannot be maintained by invoking any Code provisions that preserve incorrect spellings in prevailing usage - because "laternaria" is the same name as "laternarius", and not an incorrect spelling as the Code defines it. If one were, say, "laternarius" and the original publication turned out to be "lanternarius", then those WOULD be variant spellings, and prevailing usage could be invoked.

(4) At present, there are errors and omissions in all of the print and online resources that offer lists or catalogs of names (for all organisms, not just syrphids). The number of errors in the genders of genera represent a trivially tiny proportion, mostly names that are neuter but ending in "-a" (e.g. all names ending in "-gramma" or "-soma"). However, the number of errors where taxonomists have treated epithets that are nouns as adjectives (or the converse) are a small but significant proportion. As such, if you want to compile an accurate list, it will require some effort on your part to find and correct the existing errors in the available resources.

(5) The primary source of contentious cases among species epithets are names that have the potential to be either a noun or an adjective: under Art. 31.2.2, you MUST consult the original description to see if the author provided explicit evidence that such a name was intended to be an adjective, and if there is no such evidence, all such names must be treated under the Code as nouns. In some cases, this can be easily checked, especially if the name is Latin in origin and well-known to exist as both noun and adjective, such as "pumilus" (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pumilus). In some such cases, taxonomists ignore the Code, and this could create problems (e.g., no one EVER treats the epithet "alba" as a noun, even though this is a genuine Latin usage: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alba#Latin). Yet other cases, especially those involving words from Greek that have been Latinized, can be incredibly confusing and contentious. For example, the term "cephala" is a Latinized Greek noun, and words ending in "-cephala" can be considered noun phrases, but could also be argued to be adjectival under some conditions. There is no universal agreement on this, most particularly because the Latinization of Greek is not a traditional practice except by taxonomists; we cannot consult non-taxonomic sources for an objective assessment, and taxonomists cannot come to a consensus. To continue the example, some taxonomists will consider the endings "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" to all be adjectival, always. Other taxonomists will treat "-cephala" as a noun, but "-cephalus" and "-cephalum" as adjectival. Other taxonomists will look at the prefix, and if the prefix is Latin, then "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are nouns, but if the prefix is Greek, then "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are adjectival (e.g., "caeruleocephalus" is a noun but "cyanocephalus" is an adjective). Still other taxonomists, such as myself, trying to follow the Code, will use the evidence of disagreement to claim that such names MIGHT be either nouns or adjectives, depending on who you ask, and therefore choose to apply Article 31.2.2 to ANY such word; under this interpretation they can only be adjectival if the original description explicitly stated that the name was adjectival; otherwise, they are all nouns by default. I will point out, with some regret, that consensus does not even exist among the Commissioners as to how and when 31.2.2 should be applied.

(6) I would encourage people who are concerned with the potential for grammatical confusion to destabilize the spelling of names to consider the following points: (A) there is a precedent, implemented by John Oswald at TAMU, to make available an exhaustive online catalog of names in which every single genus has its gender established following the Code, and in which all of the species epithets are stated to be either declinable (adjectival) or not, and showing the different correct gender-matching spellings whenever the name is declinable. He has done this for the entire superorder Neuropterida, singlehandedly, demonstrating the feasibility of providing a definitive resource: https://lacewing.tamu.edu/SpeciesCatalog/Main (B) there is a mechanism presently embedded in the Code under Article 79 called the "List of Available Names" (a.k.a. LAN), by which a group of taxonomic experts can establish their own determination of the parameters of all names for their taxonomic group, even if that determination may in some cases conflict with the Code (as embodied in Art. 79.4.1: "A name occurring in an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology is deemed be an available name and to have the spelling, date, and authorship recorded in the List (despite any evidence to the contrary)."). The point is that if the Syrphid community wants to have their own catalog, adhering to existing practice (not necessarily always adhering to the Code), there IS a mechanism available to accomplish this. (C) taken together, you have two basic options: if you follow Oswald's example, you can create and maintain an online resource that people studying syrphids can use, and if everyone uses this source and ONLY this source, then even if it is not Code-compliant, at least the usage of names will be consistent. You can do this immediately, with no involvement from outside your community. You would not be the first or even second community adopting a practice that allows for stabilization of names but does not follow the Code. If you follow the LAN model, you can create a similar resource, but one that is by definition Code-compliant; the drawback is that it will take an absolute minimum of 5 years for the full external review process once the proposed List has been submitted to the Commission for consideration. I have personally made a similar recommendation to the lepidopterist community (who presently reject gender agreement in violation of the Code, but who, if they formalized it under a LAN, would have the Commission's formal support to continue this practice), and also to the herpetologist community (who presently suffer from a prolific self-publishing amateur whose works are technically Code-compliant but are being boycotted by the professional community, in violation of the Code, though if they implement a LAN they can render all his names permanently unavailable with the Commission's formal support).

(7) As a final aside I will note that as an entomology collection manager (with some 4 million specimens) I maintain a personal authority file of valid insect names, as part of our asset management. I have 210,254 species names presently recorded, and have personally screened 158,112 of these to determine which ones are definitively declinable (70,781), which ones are definitively not (77,368), and which ones will require examination of the original description under Art. 31.2.2 (9,963). It's tedious, but not impossible. Note that the proportion of names requiring examination of the original description is only 6% of the total. If I am correct that there are fewer than 7000 valid syrphid species names, you can expect only ~500 names that will need scrutiny, the vast majority of which should prove to be indeclinable because the original description gives no etymology at all. The remaining ~6500 can be screened within a week, if there is an existing compiled list of valid names. If you would be willing to trust my assessments, I would be willing to help with this, I have lots of practice. ;-)

Sincerely,

--

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum

Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega

phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)

             https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html

  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness

        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210104/694d5966/attachment-0001.html>