PlanetCatfish.com

Jools suggested I ask this but couldn't get into Cat-elog forum so I'll ask this here.

In the entry for Tatia perugiae it is mentioned that the specific epithet is named for Albert Perugia. However, does that not make the correct name T. perugiai ?

thanx for your comments please.

not right away, no.

a Latin extension of a name can be 'e' or 'i'; after a vowel it's often 'e', but after a consonant it's often 'i' (or 'ii')

I don't know however if these are strict rules.
Look at names like Corydoras robinae where the 'e' comes after the name of 'Robina', whereas in Amblydoras hancocki
the 'i' comes after the name of 'Hancock'.

Odd things happen though. Corydoras schultzei for example. is the extension 'i' after 'Schultze' or 'ei' after 'Schulz'?

sorry I assumed that everyone is familiar with the ICZN rules.

What I meant was that the specific epithet must follow the gender of the person being named for. In this case I assume Albert to be a man, and hence it should use the masculine form i.e. perugiai

sidguppy wrote:I don't know however if these are strict rules.
Look at names like Corydoras robinae where the 'e' comes after the name of 'Robina', whereas in Amblydoras hancocki
the 'i' comes after the name of 'Hancock'.

Odd things happen though. Corydoras schultzei for example. is the extension 'i' after 'Schultze' or 'ei' after 'Schulz'?

to correctly spell it, was named after Mrs Robine Schwartz and so is, to the letter, correct - as is hancocki - I take the point about the other cory.

But we're being asked about a gender thing here, not a misspelling. I just don't know which is why I suggested it was asked here (and a taxonomy forum is the right place to ask).

The Tatia thing has bounced around a lot, but CLOFFSCA lists it as Tatia currently.

Jools

The gentitive form of the specific epithet has to match the genus. I don't know if Tatia is derived from a personal name (Tate?) but if so it is feminine, and then any the specific epithet derived from a personal name (e.g. Perugia) must end in -ae (feminine) not -i (masculine).

Mike_Noren wrote:The gentitive form of the specific epithet has to match the genus. I don't know if Tatia is derived from a personal name (Tate?) but if so it is feminine, and then any the specific epithet derived from a personal name (e.g. Perugia) must end in -ae (feminine) not -i (masculine).

What you have stated is correct based on Article 31.2 Agreement in gender, but only for adjectives and particples. Nouns are exempted in Art 31.2.1.

Jools I think I have found the reason why. In Art 31.1.1:

31.1.1. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is Latin, or from a modern personal name that is or has been latinized, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar.

Examples. Margaret, if latinized to Margarita or Margaretha, gives the genitives margaritae or margarethae; similarly Nicolaus Poda, even though the name of a man, if accepted as a Latin name, gives podae; Victor and Hercules, if accepted as Latin names, give victoris and herculis; the name of Plinius, a Roman, even though anglicized to Pliny, gives plinii; Fabricius and Sartorius, if treated as Latin names, give fabricii and sartorii, but if treated as modern names give fabriciusi and sartoriusi; Cuvier, if latinized to Cuvierius, gives cuvierii.



It seems that Perugia is being treated as a Latin name. You can see the articles here http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=31&nfv=

It would seem so, but it's awfully complex. At least that is cleared up.

Jools

Jools wrote:It would seem so, but it's awfully complex. At least that is cleared up.

Jools

haha, its not so bad, perhaps I spend too much time reading fine prints in contracts. One way to be sure is to get the description paper.

Is Centromochlus perugiae then wrong or is it still going back and forth.

At the moment it is Tatia perugiae, thus making Centromochlus perugiae a synonym. I would surprise me if this species' name would change back to Centromochlus again.