Species epithets which are genitive nouns ending in -ii (such as ... wahlbergii)

[traianbertau]

For epithets that are personal names as nouns in genitive case the general rule for Latinization would be: a modern name takes -i; but there are numerous cases in which the original descriptions has the epithet ending in -ii, such as wahlbergii, thunbergii, mniszechii etc.
Often these ii-nouns have been emendet with the first revision and are on iNat and elsewhere now wahlbergi etc. Nonetheless, we have several names on iNat retaining the original spelling such as wahlbergii.
Do we have a guideline here on how to treat such species names when the original spelling was -Ii?

I came across the species: Zophosis mniszechi which originally is spelled -ii
ser.4:t.7 (1867) - Annales de la Société entomologique de France - Biodiversity Heritage Library
but on iNat is is different, probably after Chatanay 1921:31 Genera Insectorum 176

What would be preferable now for iNat?

[typophyllum]

If the original description has the -ii spelling, then this is the valid name. See ICZN Article 33.4.

“The use of the genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate …”
https://code.iczn.org/formation-and-treatment-of-names/article-33-subsequent-spellings/?frame=1

[traianbertau]

Is the -ii spelling considered a correct spelling for a modern latinized name ending in consonant? Or is it considered incorrect, as per ICZN 31.1.2
31.1. Species-group names formed from personal names

A species-group name formed from a personal name may be either a noun in the genitive case, or a noun in apposition (in the nominative case), or an adjective or participle [Art. 11.9.1].

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.}

31.1.2. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women; the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive.

^{Example. Under this provision, the species-group names podai from Poda, victori from Victor, and cuvieri from Cuvier are admissible. The names puckridgei and puckridgi may be formed from Puckridge.}

31.1.3. The original spelling of a name formed under Articles 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 is to be preserved [Art. 32.2] unless it is incorrect [Arts. 32.3, 32.4] (for treatment of incorrect subsequent spellings of such species-group names see Articles 33.3 and 33.4).

^{Example. The species-group names cuvierii and cuvieri are admissible under Arts. 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 respectively, and, if available, are preserved as distinct and correct original spellings. (For homonymy between such names when combined with the same generic name, see Article 58.14) .}

The name Mniszech is a modern name and should become mniszechi

[jwidness]

To restate some of the previous post in less formal language:
Whether a name takes -i or -ii depends on the stem. For example, the ICZN says if you want to name something after Cuvier, you can name it cuvieri OR you can latinize the name to Cuvierius first and then name it cuvierii. So both cuvieri and cuvierii are correct, it just depends on what stem was chosen.
The original author gets to decide what stem they want to use. Most authors won’t actually write out the stem, it’s implied based on the ending of the epithet. In this case, if Deyrolle chose mniszechii, then he was probably latinizing the name first to something like Mniszechius, rather than forming the epithet directly from the modern name.

[typophyllum]

Incorrect latinization, e.g. describing nowadays a species with a surplus i in its name, must not be corrected.

[traianbertau]

Ok, thank you!

So in all such cases, you have to consult the original description and follow what was the epithet there.

That means, we have a few ‘wrong’ spellings on iNat, such as Pseudocreobotra wahlbergi which is wrong on Mantodea speciesfile which we should follow on iNat.

Does iNat go in such a case against taxon schema authority?

[jwidness]

@traianbertau

So in all such cases, you have to consult the original description and follow what was the epithet there.

As is often the case with the ICZN, there are exceptions to the rule. In this instance, if the original author chose a particular spelling, but later authors have mostly used something different, then the newer spelling may be considered correct under the “prevailing usage” clause:

33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.

If “prevailing usage” is unclear, for example, you look up both names in Google Scholar and they have similar numbers of hits, then someone can submit a case for an official ruling.

[bnormark]

I imagine that the theory behind -ii is that first you Latinize the name and then you make the genitive. Karl von Linné called himself Carolus Linnaeus; similarly, J. Smith might style himself J. Smithius, of which the genitive would be smithii. Accordingly I expect it is most common in the oldest names.

[zygy]

This is one of the most endlessly debated topics in taxonomy. My opinion would be to just let sleeping dogs lie :)

[choess]

I will content myself with noting that the ICNafp and the ICZN work in sometimes remarkably different ways. If you’re dealing with organisms under the former Code (mostly plants, fungi, and algae), the relevant part of the Madrid Code is Articles 60-62, on orthography. For vascular plants, if different sources are in conflict on the orthography of an epithet, it is generally best to seek out the IPNI entry for the taxon and the original spelling in the protolog, and see if that spelling follows the Code, particularly Art. 60.8 and Art. 60.9 in this case. If the original spelling by the author was corrected according to the Code, there will often be a note to that effect in the IPNI entry. If IPNI appears to be in error, feedback sent to them to correct the IPNI entry will eventually bubble up to POWO.

[jdmore]

@choess

the ICNafp and the ICZN work in sometimes remarkably different ways

To put a finer point on it (since I believe the thrust of this topic concerned the ICZN), the ICNafp differs from ICZN by requiring (as always with certain exceptions) that genitive endings be based on the Latinized form of personal names, and that non-conforming endings be corrected. So for plants and fungi, -i or -ae is generally never correct for personal names ending in consonants, and must be corrected to -ii or -iae, regardless of the ending used in the protologue.

[choess]

The OP referenced an animal, but didn’t qualify that their statements about epithets were zoological.

In the ICNafp, it’s true that personal names with no “well-established latinized form” are “latinized” (adding the extra “i” before the ending), but only when they end in consonants (and not in “-er”). Further trouble can be anticipated from Note 3: for names that do have a “well-established latinized form”, epithets can be constructed using that form, as in Rec. 60C.1, or the non-latinized form, which is then given the extra “i” per Art. 60.8(b), etc. E.g., one could honor Ignatz Urban either by treating his surname as the non-Latin Urban → “Urbanius” → “urbanii”, or using the well-established Latinized form Urbanus → “urbani”. Both are acceptable and not to be corrected.

Long story short, my advice to curators trying to deal with problems like this in botanical nomenclature is to flag names and/or contact IPNI when anomalies like this arise, unless you’re familiar with the subtleties of the Code. Trying to “correct” epithets by applying rules of thumb will probably create more chaos than it solves.

[choess]

(Postscript: I learned a lot of this the hard way. Many thanks to Kanchi Gandhi, in particular, for patient tutelage.)

[sjl197]

Nice overview and different viewpoints on nuances. I think the botany view point is welcome as i’ve often been surprised by the differences in the code there, sometimes very informatively back to give context on conflict or ambiguity on the Zoological ICZN side.

Anyway, with that, for ICZN, i want to highlight the paper by Dubois, 2007 “Genitives of species and subspecies nomina derived from personal names should not be emended” (available on Researchgate etc) for elaboration on all.

[vladimir_fuka]

Indeed, when I saw the title with wahlbergii (from Wahlbergius), the first organism I thought of was https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1449438-Rubus-wahlbergii