Talk:Psilota decessum
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow editors,
I have just modified 1 external links on Psilota decessa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170809002737/http://www.derraik.org/Publications/Derraik%26Heath-Diptera_phytotelm.pdf to http://www.derraik.org/Publications/Derraik%26Heath-Diptera_phytotelm.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Psilota decessa/decessum
[edit]Dear Prof Yanega, ["cc" to Iestyn]
I've just made some changes here, but notably adapted this bit of text which seems to come from you, please see if you accept my revision to that text. It previously said "Original combination: Melanostoma decessum NOTE: Under ICZN Art. 31.2.2, the epithet "decessum" is treated as a noun by default, because it can be either a noun or an adjective, and Hutton did not explicitly state that it was adjectival; see [1]"
link given as [1] = accusative singular https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decessum
Well, i adapted the wording here in my "23:44, 15 July 2024 Sjl197 talk contribs 1,378 bytes +71"
Notably, what i changed was a bit of specificity about the noun form, and your external link to wiktionary. Under my interpretation of ICZN then the "forms" of nouns (or whatever the linguists call those) in accusative case (or dative case, etc) are not "allowable" - but i quickly saw it's also same form in plural genitive
new link as = genitive plural https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decessuum#Latin
Just changing to saying its in genitive plural hopefully circumvents that technicality about the noun being acceptable - which then would be inline with what i'm seeing in databases elsewhere, e.g. http://www.diptera.org/Nomenclator/Details/229442 Sjl197 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Yeah, this one is a fringe case as to whether 31.2.2 applies or not. As I recall, I checked my master list list of insect species epithets, and the only other example I found was a dragonfly name that was being treated as a noun - see the name Rhionaeschna decessus (Calvert, 1953) - originally published as Aeshna decessus Calvert, 1953. That original spelling (and continued use) makes no sense if it's an adjective. Then I checked Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decessus - and there "decessus" is very plainly listed as a noun or an adjective. The only "leap" I took is to consider that if "decessus" is a noun, then ANY form of decessus used by a taxonomist could be intended as a noun. That's the only potentially controversial thing, because the Code is not explicit about allowing for cases where taxonomists incorrectly use a variant of a noun as if it were an adjective. The best example of someone using a wrong form I can offer is the species epithet "nigrus", which was actually published. It is not an actual adjective, despite looking like one, and despite the root word being adjectival, "nigrus" has to be treated as if it were a noun. Again, the Code isn't fully explicit about this, and to some people it will seem like a stretch, but I'll defend it, even if only for consistency's sake. Look at it this way: wouldn't it be confusing if we say that "decessus" COULD be a noun, but "decessa" and "decessum" could NOT? I should note that the plural genitive you linked is spelled differently - "decessuum" instead of "decessum" - so is not applicable here. Thanks for your note, and the chance to explain things, at least. I'll leave it to you if you feel that treating the Psilota name as an adjective is best; it's one name out of literally millions, and not worth a lot of trouble. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. So from this feedback, what i mis-viewed that your front-end statement was that it seems you were then indeed deliberately linking to the accusative singular (therefore invoking 31.2.2 from that). I then added to complexity by boldly (mis)editing to direct to the genitive plural where I had not noticed the "extra-U", so - my apologies and that genitive plural that can be discounted from this whole issue. I'll aim to fix the text and link back to the accusative singular with the same spelling!
- In essence i'd agree that "decessum" as a form of decessus are both still nouns, but i was seeing interpretation of 31.2.2 in light of the earlier sections "11.9.1.2. a noun in the nominative singular" / "11.9.1.3. a noun in the genitive case" which to me lays out which cases are acceptable. But of course 31.2.2 doesn't mention any cases for nouns nor adjective which seems unnecessarily ambiguious. If "decessum" were indeed the genitive plural, i'd view this leap of being interpretable a noun as being a tiny and secure leap - as you say plainly if it were originally "decessus", but a big leap to interpretation of 31.2.2 for application of one in the accursive singular case leaves me feeling very uneasy!
- Interesting example for "nigrus", and especially that you say "has to be treated as if it were a noun", it sounds a bit like when i tried to look into chaos with usage of "-igerus/-iferus" and derivatives, my sad conclusion was that latin was never a static unambiguous language to start, even long before taxonomists started getting creative with modern 'latinizations'!
- Fyi, i put a wiki post on Wikicommons as after i thought i was satisfied with the taxonomic resolution (i.e. [wrongly] supporting "decessum" as seeing the genitive being 'allowable')
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Psilota_decessa_-%3E_Psilota_decessum
- My current view on hindsight would be NOT to favour "decessum" as a noun - as wasn't formed in any of what seem the acceptable nominative singular or genitive cases, whilst the interpretation as an adjective would have its suffix formed 'correctly' in gender agreement with its original combination. I do however wonder how many latin/latinized "nouns in apposition" out there that don't fit the narrow "a noun in the nominative singular" amongst the millions! Sjl197 (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)