August 16, 2002
From: Dave Behrens
In this specific case, the rules do state that a trivial name or patronym recognizing 2 or more persons will end in -arum or -orum. If an author uses any other ending, he or she has not followed the rules. This is not a typographical error, nor an misspelling, nor an error in translation, nor an error in latinization. Where do we draw the line between latinization of a word and following well established nomenclatural naming conventions and rules? I believe the journals editorial and peer review should have caught this obvious oversight. I find it hard to say that this is similar to the many latinization errors in the literature today. When the ICZN Rules are specific, as they have been for years in this case, then no latinization "error" has occurred, it is simply failure to follow the rules, and in my opinion, therefore, the name should be corrected in future publications.
firstname.lastname@example.orgBehrens, D., 2002 (Aug 16) Re: Favorinus elenalexiae or F. elenalexiarum. [Message in] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/7788
I don't think it is as clear as you suggest. If you are correct and the Rules state that the names should end in -arum, then in the 3rd Edition it clearly states we must change the spelling. However in the 4th edition this section is quite different and using the wrong suffix is not an 'incorrect original spelling'. It is mandatory to correct 'incorrect original spellings' but what you do with other incorrect constructions is not stated.
Now to the other point - whether the ending should be -arum. Article 31.1 speaks of names formed from 'a modern personal name'. Species epithets such as 'elenalexiae' are specifically NOT formed from 'a modern personal name' they are an artificial construct of two personal names. Garcia & Troncoso compare their name with Phyllidia carlsonhoffi which is also a combination of the patronyms of Clay Carlson and Patty-Jo Hoff. It is an identical situation. Should that name be changed to Phyllidia carlsonhofforum?
I have discussed this with a number of colleagues and they all agree that the situation is not clear on either of these points. I don't really care which way is correct. What I do care about is ensuring there is some stability.
Re: Favorinus elenalexiae or F. elenalexiarum
From: Gary Rosenberg, September 14, 2002
Favorinus elenalexiae or F. elenalexiarum
From: Bill Rudman, August 15, 2002
Re: Favorinus elenalexiae from Bahia de Banderas
From: Alicia Hermosillo, August 14, 2002
Favorinus elenalexiae from Bahia de Banderas
From: Alicia Hermosillo, August 12, 2002