Talk:Cooksonia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cooksonia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
And gametangia?
C. pertoni versus C. pertonii edit
W.H. Lang named C. pertoni in 1937, using a single i, after the place where the fossils were found, Perton Quarry. The question is whether he made a mistake in forming a Latin adjective from the word "Perton" and it should have been pertonii. If he did make a mistake, then Article 60.11 of the ICN (Vienna Code) says: "The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or -ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected". Rec. 60C.1 says "If the personal name ends with a consonant (except -er), substantival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. ... wilson-iae for Wilson (f), ... braun-iarum for the Braun sisters, mason-iorum for Mason, father and daughter)". So if "Perton" is treated as a personal name, it is absolutely clear that (1) the epithet should be pertonii (2) any use of pertoni should be corrected.
But C. pertoni wasn't named after a person, but a quarry. So it's not clear to me which spelling is correct. Both can be found in the literature. I used pertonii when I edited the article, which has now been changed to pertoni. I'll add a footnote on the alternative spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I was the person who changed C. pertonii to C. pertoni I'd like to state that I have no preference for C. pertoni or C. pertonii, but it seems to me that a Wiki must use only one name. Since the text I changed used both, I changed the lot to C. pertoni for no other reason than priority. If another editor shows a good reason to use C. pertonii I will not object, provided that that name is used consistently. Magere Hein (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Counting sources that I have to hand, the majority seem to use pertoni, so let's stick to that (although it does look wrong to me!). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It's clear to me that if it is a place, pertonii is an orthographic error correctable to pertoni (I would have named it pertonensis to save future generations the hassle of figuring it out).--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but suppose Perton Quarry (after which the species is named) is itself named after someone called Perton... There's a lot to be said for the zoological approach; correcting orthography leads to very tricky issues. See Roscoea cautleyoides: Taxonomy for another interesting case. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't matter; it's still a place. The Zoological approach does have its merits; I'm going to have to do the research to figure out whether Ehrendorferia shouldn't be Ehrendorfera, and maybe submit a manuscript to Taxon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just looked at your citation; that's not an orthographic error, and should not be corrected.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)