Why we ended up with Utahraptor ostrommaysi instead of ostrommaysorum

[Ethan Schoales]

In 2019, the ICZN confirmed that the correct spelling of Utahraptor’s specific epithet is ostrommaysi and not ostrommaysorum (

https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/50672). This was because U. ostrommaysi was in prevailing usage and the original spelling, but also because “The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) does not offer any provision for forming a genitive form from two persons having different names, so the original spelling ostrommaysi has to be regarded as an arbitrary combination of letters, and not a correctly formed genitive form”. C’mon, the Code really should have a provision for making genitive forms from multiple people with different names (maybe that should go in the next edition of it?). I can sort of see why they said ostrommaysi is correct, but I’d have preferred ostrommaysorum due to being named after two people rather than one, hence the genitive plural…hey, at least if you use -orum to begin with for such a name, it’ll be the correct spelling.

Ethan Schoales

[Jaime Headden]

"Prevailing usage" and the failure of the chance to accurately correct, then follow, any change (Olshevsky did try to append it, it did not succeed) is more important here than the ICZN's rules, which went from a mandatory change prior to Utahraptor's naming, to one of a more relaxed "suggested" usage.

Cheers,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CALAi95EVzfMqS0eP8uMcFcDd5zuRrGVuyio2qvwR5omfoWLpfw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Jaime A. Headden

The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)

[Ethan Schoales]

So had ostrommaysorum been more often used, it could’ve ended up ICZN-approved?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAHyo4cR_TPpE%3D%2BAbFa1BjJf1Ag8BbMMBdDKQzMna-CEPPEqXTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaime Headden]

If there had been an effort for the community at large to correct, yes.

Cheers,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CALAi95EVLpukUugo-NwnjV9W2Gh3bEkky7zaFPtdtcZ_RZ15qA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ethan Schoales]

Do you have access to the full ICZN ruling of this case? (I don’t.) 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAHyo4cSYpHyMn33o01Ru%3DyBcVXijwkwpWhMD9JCKMbK-9jLj-g%40mail.gmail.com.