Nouns In Apposition Research Articles

Is Rana pullus Smith, 1921 a junior homonym of Rana gracilis var. pulla Stoliczka, 1870: a nomenclatural analysis of nouns in apposition created by Malcolm A. Smith

The amphibian nomina created as nouns in apposition by Malcolm A. Smith are discussed and the etymology and correct names confirmed. The nomen Rana pullus Smith, 1921 is not a homonym of the nomen Rana gracilis var. pulla Stoliczka, 1870, as the first one is a noun in apposition and the second an adjective, and they show more than a one-letter difference as required by the International Code of zoological Nomenclature. The valid name of the species currently known as Alcalus tasanae is therefore Alcalus pullus. Furthermore, the epithets of the following nomina are based on nouns in apposition and should be used accordingly: Megalophrys hasseltii var. pullus Smith, 1921, valid as Leptobrachium pullus; Megalophrys intermedius Smith, 1921, valid as Brachytarsophrys intermedius; Philautus gryllus Smith, 1924, valid as Kurixalus gryllus; Rana cancrivora raja Smith, 1930, invalid synonym of Fejervarya cancrivora; and Rana cataracta Smith, 1922, invalid synonym of Odorrana hosii. The importance to follow the Point 5 of the General Recommendations of the Appendix B of the Code, to state clearly the etymology of names, is highlighted.

Chironius scurrula, the correct nomen for Chironius scurrulus (Squamata, Serpentes, Colubridae), with a list of the correct spellings of specific epithets currently in use in this genus

The correct epithet of the snake species so far known as Chironius scurrulus Wagler in Spix, 1824 is shown to be scurrula, as it is not an adjective but a noun in apposition to the generic substantive, therefore invariable. This case prompted us to review the grammatical status of the epithets of the 23 species currently considered valid in the genus Chironius Fitzinger, 1826. Only about 56.5 % of these epithets turned out to be adjectives agreeing in gender with the generic nomina with which they are combined. Although this proportion will be very variable from one zoological genus to another, it is likely that in genera with a high number of species (10‒20 or more), some epithets will not agree in gender with the genus nomina. In order to avoid subsequent corrections in the spellings of epithets (and therefore ‘nomenclatural instability’), taxonomists are therefore encouraged to pay attention to this question. As a consequence of this survey, we also provide new information on a few miscellaneous questions: the author of the type species designation for Chironius; the author, date, type specimen and type locality of the nominal taxon Chironius flavolineatus; and the etymology and status of the epithets of the bionomina Chironius foveatus and Chironius leucometapus.

Species nomina corrections in the Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera), concerning specific epithets based on letters used to refer to characters of taxa

This paper proposes to distinguish three Cases regarding the grammatical gender of species nomina which are composed of an isolated letter connected by a hyphen to a word. [Case 1] The first element is a Latin letter, the second element is another noun: the nomen is a noun in apposition, and its ending is unchanged. [Case 2] The first element is a Latin letter used to denote descriptively a character of the taxon, the second element determines the first and answers the question of its nature: the nomen is a noun in apposition, so its ending must not be changed to agree with the generic nomen but is always neuter, as the Latin letter. [Case 3] The first element is a Latin letter, the second element is a regular adjective which is specified by the first element: the nomen is an adjective, its ending must agree in gender with the generic nomen with which it is combined. Accordingly, 50 species nomina in the family Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) are analyzed and corrected when necessary.

(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status

(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status

(233–240) Proposals on orthography: Epithets honouring persons

(233–240) Proposals on orthography: Epithets honouring persons

A Minimalist-Based Approach of Tense and Subject Features in Standard Arabic and Yemeni Arabic

The present study is an investigation of the syntactic issues of Tense and Subject features in SA and YA. This study is cast within the MP advocated by Chomsky (1993, 1995). The main objective of the study is to examine the structural properties of the subject in SA and YA and its relationship with its verb. More specifically, the study shows that the subject in SA and YA has two forms, namely lexical noun, and suffixed pronoun. Therefore, the suffixed morphemes within the verb have been proved to be real pronoun subjects of the verb whether they occur alone within the verb or followed by a lexical DP as the case in some of YA sentences. Based on empirical evidence, the preverbal DP was affirmed to be a topic that occupies the [Spec TopP] while the post-verbal DP, which occurs after a suffixed pronoun, was proved to be a noun in apposition that occupies a position below VP.

New replacement name for a homonym in Lepeophtheirus (Crustacea: Copepoda: Caligidae).

Markevich (1940) established Pseudolepeophtheirus Markevich, 1940 for Pseudolepeophtheirus longicauda Markevich, 1940 based on copepods collected from the pleuronectid fish Platichthys stellatus (Pallas, 1787). Dojiri Ho (2013) synonymized the genus and the species with Lepeophtheirus Nordmann, 1832 and Lepeophtheirus parvicruris Fraser, 1920, respectively. Later, Homma et al. (2020) resurrected Markevich's species as a member of Lepeophtheirus, i.e., as L. longicauda (Markevich, 1940). The last component of the names of both genera is 'phtheirus' (transliterated from the Greek φθειρ; Nordmann 1832: 30), a masculine noun, and thus under Article 30.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (hereinafter, Code; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999), both generic names are also masculine. The species-group name longicauda might be regarded as either a noun in apposition or as an adjective in the feminine gender, and Markevich (1940) did not specify his intention in this regard. Bearing in mind that 'cauda', meaning 'tail', actually is a feminine Latin noun and that Markevich did not change the final '-a' to '-us' to match the masculine gender of the genus, we deem that longicauda Markevich, 1940 is a noun in apposition, a position supported by Article 31.2.2 of the Code.

<p><strong>Capitalised epithets in the works of Linnaeus (1758‒1767): findings and consequences in herpetology</strong></p>

Starting from a finding concerning a few specific nomina proposed by Linnaeus (1758, 1760) and Linné (1766–1767) in herpetology, we returned to the ‘rules of nomenclature’ followed, more or less explicitly, in taxonomic works of the 18th century, in an attempt to understand the status of capitalised epithets. We conclude that such epithets were viewed by their authors as nouns in apposition, or more rarely as nouns in the genitive. Therefore, nowadays, they must be treated as invariable, and not as adjectives that should agree in grammatical gender with the generic substantives with which they are combined. We provide a catalogue of these herpetological capitalised epithets in Linnaeus (1758, 1760) and Linné (1766–1767) with some nomenclatural consequences that result from our observations, especially for Corallus hortulana, Macrovipera lebetinus and Thamnophis saurita. In order to solve some nomenclatural cases, we had to resort to 12 Articles of the Code (1.3.1, 3, 11.9.1.2, 11.9.1.3, 23.2, 23.9, 31.1, 31A, 31.2.2, 32.5.1, 33.3.1, 34.2.1, 58) and to 29 technical nomenclatural terms. One more time, this highlights the fact that nomenclatural problems concerning old nomina cannot be properly dealt with in a hurry and without a good, but also critical, knowledge of the Code, and that the use of a more detailed terminology than that of the Code facilitates such a work.

Hermes a-re-ja (PY Tn 316): a new interpretation

Abstract A long-standing consensus among Mycenaean scholars is that a-reja, an epithet of Hermes in the Pylos tablet Tn 316, must be somehow related to Ares, the war god. Hermes Areiās would be either a derivative in *-ās of Ares or, according to a recent suggestion, an abbreviated compound in the first member of which Ares would figure. The present paper argues for a different solution, taking a-re-ja (dat.) /aleii̯āi/ as an apposed noun epithet of the root *h2leu̯- ‘to ward off’. Nouns in apposition to divine names are not uncommon in 1st millennium Greek (type Artemis Εὐλοχία ‘Good Delivery’), and Hermes Aleia ‘(active) Protection’ or ‘Defense’ fits neatly with Hermes’ character as a helping deity and a god of boundaries, as shown both in the myths related to him and in several of his epicleses in alphabetic Greek. Aleiă is best taken as a feminine verbal derivative in *-ih2: this type is the source of other action nouns that are either personified or have a religious background, such as αἶσα ‘destiny’ and μοῖρα ‘fate’. Furthermore, Aleia can be viewed as an independent testimony of the *-u̯i̯- > *-i̯i̯- development in Mycenaean (type i-je-re-ja ‘priestess’).

Possible pathways from agreeing to non‐agreeing genitive appositives as seen in laȝamon's Brut

AbstractIn Old English, genitive nouns in apposition are both marked for case. King Arthur's men, for example, would be Arþures cyninges menn, Arþures menn þæs cyninges, among a few other possibilities. Non‐agreeing genitive appositives such as Arþur kinges men and Arþures men (þe) king began to appear in the Early Middle English period. The analysis in two versions of Laȝamon's Brut suggests two possible pathways through which they were established. One is the development of the name and the title as a compound‐like unit, which marks genitive only at the end of the second element as in Arþur kinges men, and the other is ambiguous appositive or predicative expressions such as Arþures men (þe) king, interpretable as either ‘King Arthur's men’ or ‘men of Arthur, (who is) (the) king’, which seem to have led post‐head constituents of split genitives to appear in the nominative or unmarked case, resulting in genitive marking only on the pre‐head components. These new usages are thus originally and essentially independent of the developments of the case‐marking system itself.

Taxonomical notes on selected freshwater fish species described from northern and central Vietnam (Cypriniformes: Balitoridae, Cobitidae, Cyprinidae, Nemacheilidae; Perciformes: Channidae, Osphronemidae; Synbranchiformes: Mastacembelidae).

Selected, little known taxa of northern and central Vietnamese freshwater fish species are reviewed. Nomenclatural acts are taken: Hemibarbus lehoai is placed in synonymy of H. maculatus, Paracobitis hagiangensis in synonymy of Schistura caudofurca. A neotype of Micronemacheilus bacmeensis is assigned. The name Channa hanamensis is treated as a nomen nudum. Two labeonine species described from China are nomenclaturally affected: Garra findolabium is transferred to Vinagarra and its specific epithet is treated as a noun in apposition; the specific epithet of Sinigarra napoense is corrected to napoensis.

Erratum to the article: Sphinxiocarpon , a new name for Sphinxia – not Reid & Chandler, 1933

A nomenclatural error, involving the specific epithet, slipped into the article by Wang et al . (2007) titled ‘ Sphinxiocarpon , a new name for Sphinxia Li, Hilton & Hemsley, 1997 – not Reid & Chandler, 1933’. The epithet ‘ wuhania ’ used by Li et al . (1997) was altered to ‘ wuhanensis ’, but the new combination Sphinxiocarpon wuhanensis , proposed by Wang et al . (2007) is wrong and must be replaced. Li et al . (1997) did not explain the derivation of the specific epithet of the original name Sphinxia wuhania , but it can be considered to be either a noun in apposition or a feminine adjective agreeing with the feminine Sphinxia . There are, therefore, two options:

Against conservation of specific epithets formed wrongly as nominative nouns in apposition

Together with 31 other incorrectly formed (i.e. as nominative nouns in apposition) specific epithets, the epithet of Streptomyces scabies was corrected to Streptomyces scabiei in Taxonomic Notes published in 1997 and 1998. A subsequent Request for an Opinion, published in 2001, to reinstate the incorrect epithets for ten of these species was denied by the Judicial Commission in 2002. In 2007, a further Request for an Opinion was submitted to the Judicial Commission which proposed the conservation of the incorrect epithet of Streptomyces 'scabies' over the corrected one, scabiei. After having stated once that the corrections made to the epithets were performed according to the correct application of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (now 'of Prokaryotes', ICNP), the Judicial Commission would lose authority and credibility if it were to follow a request to abandon even one of the now correct 32 epithets in favour of its incorrectly formed predecessor. Microbiologists who accept changes in names of genera should also accept the correction of grammatical or orthographical changes in specific epithets.

Taxonomic Note: Necessary Correction of Specific Epithets Formed as Substantives (Nouns) “in Apposition”

Forming Latin species names (specific epithets) as “nominative nouns in apposition” (according to Rule 12c of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) has often been misunderstood or posed problems. Here, this grammatical construction is explained, and 24 cases that did not meet the requirements for this type of construction are corrected to a genitive noun or adjectival form in agreement with Rule 12c.

Reemplazo del nombre <em>Pristimantis viridis</em> Valencia, Yánez-Muñoz, Betancourt-Yépez, Terán-Valdez y Guayasamin, 2010

Recientemente, Valencia et al. [1] describimos una nueva especie de Pristimantis de las estribaciones noroccidentales de Ecuador. Sin embargo, cometimos un error al utilizar un epíteto específico previamente ocupado para una rana de las estribaciones occidentales y orientales de Antioquia, Colombia [2]. Según el Capítulo 12, Artículo 53.3 del Código Internacional de Nomenclatura Zoológica ICZN, Pristimantis viridis Valencia, Yánez-Muñoz, Betancourt-Yépez, Terán-Valdezy Guayasamin, 2010 es considerado como un homónimo júnior.Para solucionar este problema, y siguiendo lo estipulado en el Art. 60.3 del ICZN [3], proponemos el nombre Pristimantis rufoviridis nomen novum en reemplazo de Pristimantis viridis Valencia, Yánez-Muñoz, Betancourt-Yépez, Terán-Valdez y Guayasamin. El epíteto específico rufoviridis proviene de la combinación de palabras en latín rufus (rojo, rojizo) y viridis (verde), y hace referencia a la coloración verdosa con manchas rojizas del dorso de esta especie de rana. El epíteto rufoviridis es utilizado como sustantivo en aposición.Aunque el patrón de coloración es verde en las dos especies, P viridis presenta una coloración verde pálida o verde “manzana” inmaculado sin manchas evidentes [2], contrario a P rufoviridis el cual tiene evidentes manchas rojizas. Al igual que P rufoviridis, P viridis no tiene una posición filogenètica clara dentro del género Pristimantis [2].