There is an error rule. Similar thing happened with ‘Epthianura’
- see Schodde & Mason (1999) p341. Apparently
turns on International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Article 32.
Anyway, ‘cirrhocephalus’ in eg HANZAB (1993),
Olsen, Crome, Olsen (1993), Olsen P. (1995), Wilson (1999), C&B1 (1994),
Debus (1998) (no doubt following HANZAB and C&B1, but curiously used ‘cirrocephalus’
in HBW (1994)); ‘cirrocephalus’ in eg Monroe
& Sibley (1993), Gill & Wright (2006), C&B2 (2008) -
which says this is ‘original spelling ... and should be used’.
From:
Philip Veerman [
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2008 10:17 PM
To: Ian Fraser
Cc:
Subject: [canberrabirds] Thoughts on C&B2
However,
I hope it does not come as a surprise to you that I am actually very well aware
of that rule on nomenclature. I will admit that I have not actually seen the
original designation of that name. However, something like 20 years ago, I
asked Dick Schodde about this particular thing and he said to me that he
had seen the original designation of that name and he assured me in his usual
authoritative manner that it was given as cirrocephalus.
I believed this at the time and since. I sure hope I did not miss hear him or
that he missed my question. This was as I expected because it was my
observation that the older books mostly use cirrocephalus,
whereas cirrhocephalus
mostly came into general use in books published after about 1980. I expected
that someone made an error and then was copied by other authors. Now I took his
advice on face value and have been raising the question at various times since
then.
What
I am not sure about is if the name is spelled one way, say in the title of a
original designation of a species and another way(s) (simply by virtue or a
typing mistake, either way, even several times) in the text of the same
article, then which one is correct.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 17,
2008 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds]
Thoughts on C&B2
>
oft repeated miss-spelling of the species name of the Collared Sparrowhawk,
(with the extra wrong h in it -cirrhocephalus
should be cirrocephalus).
It may be unfortunate, but the fact is that according to the rules of
nomenclature the first-published name is the correct one, even if it
contains what would be misspellings (or other errors) in another context. While
it is asserted that the first 'h' in cirrhocephalus is unnecessary in
anglicising it from Greek (why, I am not enough of a Classics scholar - or any
of one - to say) the fact is that Vieillot wrote it thus, so that's what it is!
cheers all
IF
--
Ian Fraser,
Environment Tours; Vertego Environmental Wordsmithing
GPO Box 3268, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6249 1560 fax: 61 2 6247 3227
---
