[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

• Previous message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
• Next message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

David, I disagree with you on this point.  I think that pluralizing uninomina to agree with plural clade names will create unnecessary confusion for readers.  To me, the main reason for changing the gender to match a clade name that is also a genus name is to avoid unnecessary divergence from the way users of the rank-based code are spelling combinations involving the same pair of names.

Phil


On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:11 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:

>> I think you are misinterpreting  Note 21A.1.  The note begins "When a 
>> species uninomen is combined with a clade name that is not also a 
>> genus..."  This is the only situation the Note refers to in saying 
>> that the ending of the uninomen should not be changed to agree in 
>> gender or number.  If a uninomen is combined with the name of a clade 
>> that is also a genus, the last sentence in the Note doesn't apply. 
>> [...] Would adding that qualification resolve the 
>> problem you are seeing in the current wording? 
>  
> No. I think agreement with non-genus names should be optional as well; 
> according to the new Note 21A.1, it is outright forbidden. 
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 

• Previous message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
• Next message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]