Gender agreement - mandatory non-emendations?

[Ziv Lieberman]

Hi all,

I have a few gender agreement questions; I believe that these are the same kind of changes as discussed by James Fetzner in this group on 23 June, which Doug Yanega explains are " This is neither an emendation nor a change in spelling, technically, as the Code defines them; this is a mandatory change of termination for purposes of gender agreement." I'd love confirmation:

†Yantaromyrmex mayrianum Dlussky & Dubovikoff, 2013: 311

 - This should be changed (not emended!) to  †Y. mayrianus.

†Tapinoma glaesaria Perrichot et al. 2019: 586

- This should be changed to  †T. glaesarium.

Is it appropriate to cite Art. 31.2.2 and Arts 32.4-32.5 in these cases to note that this is required but doesn't count as an emendation of an incorrect original spelling?

Thank you!

-Ziv

[Richard Littauer]

Hi Ziv,

As far as I can tell, Yantaromyrmex mayrianum should be changed to mayrianus; the epithet appears to end in a Latin adjectival ending -anus, -ana, -anum. The genus of the genus is masculine. 

Tapinoma glaesaria is a neuter word, from ταπείνωμα, although I'm not sure if it should be better transliterated as Tapeinoma. Treatments of this species as feminine may be because people think that Tapinoma is not a Greek word, in which case it ends in an -a, which is normally feminine. Under 30.1.3, 30.1.4.5, or 30.2.3 (as it is combined with collina in the original description), this would be feminine. I can see the validity of both arguments. Almost all species are currently treated as neuter on AntWiki - I would favor that gender for the sake of stability. https://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Category:Tapinoma_species 

The word glaesaria is an adjective; but it is also a noun: 

Glaesārĭa (Glēs-), ae (sc. insula), f. [glaesum], 1. an amber island in the North Sea, also called Burcana, Plin. 4, 13, 27, § 97; 37, 3, 11, § 42.

The original description notes that it is derived from 'glaesara' meaning 'of amber', which I would argue to be a firm indication of the author's intent. Under 31.2.2, this must then be considered an adjective. If you decide that Tapinoma is definitively neuter from the Greek (like most have), then this species name must undergo a mandatory change. I would cite Articles 31.2 and 34.2 for that. 

These are mandatory changes for agreement, not emendations or changes in spelling. Hope this helps. 

Best,

Richard

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Taxacom" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to taxacom+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/632e48d4-4977-4ceb-84e8-5ad8b16fc1c0n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Richard Littauer | burntfen.com | socials: richard.social

[Ziv Lieberman]

Hi Richard,

Thank you so much! I'm glad to hear that I was thinking in the correct direction.

I do wonder if some changes that have been stated to be emendations of misspellings should in fact be considered under this category, e.g., Schismiscapus extinctus was originally spelled S. exstinctum, and the change was called a 'justified emendation of spelling'. Nothing to do in these other cases, but interesting if the distinction has not been always noted before.

Thanks again,

Ziv

[Richard Littauer]

Assuming that Schismiscapus is masculine, the change of exstinctum to exstinctus is a mandary change for agreement, not a justified emendation of spelling. 33.1 is pretty clear: "A subsequent spelling of a name, if different from the original spelling [Art. 32.1], is either an emendation [Art. 33.2], or an incorrect subsequent spelling [Art. 33.3], or a mandatory change [Art. 34]."

The original description calls exstinctum a noun, which is not correct - there is no known case where exstinctum was used as a noun according to the dictionaries I looked at. All of the known substantives are the masculine exstinctus. It's not a big deal that the authors of the publication for a change in ending noted it as a "justified emendation" - they're not right, but the change is the same either way, really. It should be exstinctus when combined with Schismiscapus. 

I'm following the unwritten rule here that only known substantives in dictionaries should be used to argue that adjectives are nouns, and any adjective that doesn't have a known substantive should only be considered an adjective – not including colors, which are always considered to be adjectives. This isn't written into the Code, but it'd be really hard to argue the alternative productively and stay friends with people. If you ignore this rule, exstinctum is actually a noun and any change is an unjustified emendation. But I would strongly advise not taking this view. 

Fun! 

R 

[Ziv Lieberman]

Thanks again for the thoughts! This is actually a case where there is no valid reference for the "emendation" - just a note on AntCat, which is however what most everyone in ants treats as the canonical record. There are a few other examples where such changes are made correctly, but using the wrong term; as you say, the result is the same, so in those instances I won't quibble about the phraseology. Still, I'm glad to gain clarity about the actual articles involved for other work!

Cheers,

Ziv

[Thomas Pape]

Latin grammar and gender agreement often cause debate.

It may be that dictionaries do not give examples that “exstinctum” can be used as a noun.

Still, I would maintain that the name can mean: "that which has become extinct".

 

Richard mentioned “the unwritten rule here that only known substantives in dictionaries should be used to argue that adjectives are nouns”.

There may well be social expectations about linguistic scholarship, just as there are for scientific scholarship, but when a name is established in a scientific work, it should be assessed against the rules that are in force.

 

In the zoological Code, Art. 31.2.2 covers situations “Where the author of a species-group name did NOT indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either” (my caps).

Evidently, the opinion of the author matters, and note here that the original description of Schismiscapus extinctus unambiguously states that: “The specific epithet exstinctum is a Latin noun”.

In the editorial committee currently working on revising the 4^th edition of ICodeZN, we are considering proposing an Article with the following wording:

 

“31.2.3. A species-group name for which the original author stated explicitly that it should be treated as a noun is indeclinable.”

 

Note that nothing has been decided, and when the draft of ‘Code-5’ is ready (perhaps early 2027), it will be distributed for a one-year period of public feedback.

 

/Thomas Pape

.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/CAOU%2B0JBFd%3DaeLvepW%3DboN-OH_pccc%2B9R3oANdT-XzDoQUG9PrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Douglas Yanega]

On 9/9/26 10:39 PM, 'Ziv Lieberman' via Taxacom wrote:

I do wonder if some changes that have been stated to be emendations of misspellings should in fact be considered under this category, e.g., Schismiscapus extinctus was originally spelled S. exstinctum, and the change was called a 'justified emendation of spelling'. Nothing to do in these other cases, but interesting if the distinction has not been always noted before.

Others commenting here have apparently missed that these are in fact two different words: "exstinctum" and "extinctus". The latter would indeed constitute an unjustified emendation or misspelling of the former, having lost an entire letter from the middle of the word.

As for the change in termination, the overwhelming majority of uses in both Latin and in zoology have treated the word as an adjective. It is very disruptive, and requires a great deal of extra "bookkeeping", to discover that we need to treat this one particular name as a noun, when all 79 of the other such names in zoology are treated as adjectives. If we rigorously enforce Art. 31.2.2, all 79 of those need to be treated as nouns by default instead, and that would be VERY disruptive, changing at least a dozen of their spellings. If we enforce Art. 31.2.2, hundreds of species presently known as alba/albus/album will have to revert to original spellings, because "alba", "albus", and "album" can all be nouns, and virtually no author ever thought it would be necessary for them to explicitly state that they intended the name to be an adjective, as required by Art. 31.2.2.

Exceptionalism of this sort is one of the things that frustrates taxonomists like Ziv who are simply trying to understand and follow the rules, and I would personally suggest NOT allowing it in Code 5, and to go one step further by eliminating Art. 31.2.2 entirely. The example of "alba" is just the tip of that proverbial iceberg.

I believe that words used as names should be fixed as either nouns or adjectives, not a case-by-case mixture of the two to accommodate authors who want to set themselves apart. In a case like this, there are people who have never heard of the genus Schismiscapus, don't have access to the original description of its species, but still might want to use the name in a publication; we do not presently have a central public list of every species name ever published in zoology that they could consult in order to see that Schismiscapus exstinctum is an exceptional case. It shouldn't be: it should be Schismiscapus exstinctus, regardless of the author's intent.

It is, in fact, an incredibly difficult thing to compile a complete list of all of the several million species names ever published, and all of their known combinations. It's never been done, and probably never will be. By contrast, it is fairly easy to compile a list of the roughly 150,000 potentially adjectival words used as species epithets, and decide which ones should be considered adjectives, and which ones should not. I actually HAVE such a list in preparation, and it's time-consuming but otherwise not difficult. In that list, "alba" is an adjective, as is "exstinctus".

With any luck, in a few years we will have an app ready to go that will allow for automatic gender-matching for all zoological names, but that app will only work if species epithets can only be one thing or the other. I think taxonomists will find that having an app on their phone that will get this right every time is better than having to read original literature and dig into dictionaries, and still getting it wrong.

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    phone: 951-827-4315
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (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

[Ziv Lieberman]

Thank you Thomas and Doug for the interesting perspectives. I should note that I made a typo in "extinctus" - it is "exstinctus", so I think it is in the category of mandatory change, not unjustified emendation. This is all great food for thought - I appreciate it!

-Ziv

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Taxacom" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/taxacom/Y6baBUxsU74/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to taxacom+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/119f524a-35c4-451f-994a-41fafba22e9e%40gmail.com.

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Art. 31.2.2 has repeatedly been identified as a source of confusion,
Doug explained why.

In the course of the Code revision the Code-5 Editorial Committee
prepared a new regulation that may fit better current practice. Its
wording (still pending for being approved by the Commission, and then to
be presented to the public in a one-year review period) would look like
this:

"A species-group name that has been variously used as a declinable
adjective and as a noun is indeclinable if the original description does
not indicate how the name was used. Substantivized adjectives are to be
interpreted as adjectives unless noun usage is explicit."

Example
The bird name Fringilla domestica Linnaeus, 1758, currently Passer
domesticus, is to be interpreted as an adjective.

My recommendation is not to change the endings of species-group names if
it is predictable that such a regulation in Code-5 would make a change
unnecessary. Should the new regulation not pass finally and the Code-4
regulation is retained, the endings could be changed in another
publication in the future.

My general recommendation is to be very cautious in changing endings of
species-group names in accustomed spellings if the need for such a
change was not very firmly confirmed by colleagues. I consider it a good
approach to ask in the Taxacom community for advice before taking action.


If this helps.

Best wishes
Francisco

[Ziv Lieberman]

Thanks, Francisco, for the further thoughts. This is a very useful discussion on all ends. Perhaps fortunately in my cases, none of these names have much use beyond their original descriptions and a few catalog listings, so they are neither high priority nor strongly established and well-known, which I suppose makes the decisions somewhat less fraught. It seems to me that Schismiscapus exstinctu.... is the real stickler here.

On the subject, if I may run one more by the community:

Tapinoma trochis Wilson, 1985:34 was "emended" to T. troche. Wilson states "The Greek specific name trochis means runner and is meant to refer to the powerful-looking fore legs." As a simple noun, I am thinking that this "emendation" is unjustified and that the name should be indeclinable. Is that reasonable as well?

Thanks again to all!

-Ziv

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Taxacom" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/taxacom/Y6baBUxsU74/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to taxacom+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/b741c551-7222-4a93-a2a1-02e44e391659%40gwdg.de.

[Richard Littauer]

> Tapinoma trochis Wilson, 1985:34 was "emended" to T. troche. Wilson states "The Greek specific name trochis means runner and is meant to refer to the powerful-looking fore legs." As a simple noun, I am thinking that this "emendation" is unjustified and that the name should be indeclinable. Is that reasonable as well?

That would be correct. The species name should be treated as a noun in apposition, and not changed. The change to troche is an unjustified emendation. 

Best,

R

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Taxacom" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to taxacom+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/CAOU%2B0JAoQeS53gw%2BKr3j_Z%3DJaWhSh2amt8bsbNeb7j3aoQtPDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ziv Lieberman]

Great, thank you for the confirmation!

-Z

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Ziv and Richard,

The trochis/troche case is also interesting. Is Wilson's 1985
publication and that of the author who emended the name online?

We have been discussing such situations in the Code-5 Editorial
Committee and considered such changes as not really intended by the
authors, but the authors assumed that they needed to change the ending
because of Code regulations. Under this reasoning it would be more
appropriate to consider them as incorrect subsequent spellings rather
than as unjustified emendations. We prepared a wording of a new Article
to be presented for discussion:

"Erroneous changes. A change to the ending of a name that was considered
mandatory on erroneous grounds constitutes an incorrect subsequent
spelling, not an emendation."

The intention is to avoid unintended and misleading formations of new names.

If the name trochis would be preoccupied, then an unjustified emendation
could be used for the taxon. However using troche in such a case as a
substitute name would not be much better, because subsequent authors
might also think they need to change the ending, and then they would
spell the taxon again trochis. So it is better to consider such changes
as incorrect subsequent spellings. These cannot be used as names for taxa.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 11.09.2026 um 05:36 schrieb Richard Littauer:
>> *Tapinoma trochis* Wilson, 1985:34 was "emended" to *T. troche*. Wilson
> states "The Greek specific name *trochis* means runner and is meant to

> refer to the powerful-looking fore legs." As a simple noun, I am thinking
> that this "emendation" is unjustified and that the name should be
> indeclinable. Is that reasonable as well?
>
> That would be correct. The species name should be treated as a noun in

> apposition, and not changed. The change to *troche* is an unjustified

> emendation.
>
> Best,
> R
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:25 PM 'Ziv Lieberman' via Taxacom <
> tax...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Francisco, for the further thoughts. This is a very useful
>> discussion on all ends. Perhaps fortunately in my cases, none of these
>> names have much use beyond their original descriptions and a few catalog
>> listings, so they are neither high priority nor strongly established and
>> well-known, which I suppose makes the decisions somewhat less fraught. It

>> seems to me that *Schismiscapus exstinctu....* is the real stickler here.

>> On the subject, if I may run one more by the community:

>> *Tapinoma trochis* Wilson, 1985:34 was "emended" to *T. troche*. Wilson
>> states "The Greek specific name *trochis* means runner and is meant to

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/CAOU%2B0JAoQeS53gw%2BKr3j_Z%3DJaWhSh2amt8bsbNeb7j3aoQtPDw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Ziv Lieberman]

Hi Francisco,

Wilson 1985 is available to download here. The incorrect subsequent spelling was in Bolton 1995 A new general catalogue of the ants of the world, which is not available online, but has the following entry (format and symbology original):

*troche. *Tapinoma trochis Wilson, 1985c: 34, fig. 12 (w.)

   DOMINICAN AMBER (Miocene).

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/527854bc-e9f2-4766-ab01-1f4664f9f597%40gwdg.de.