Zootaxa 1541: 41–48 (2007) www.mapress.com / zootaxa/

ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)

Editorial Correspondence

Copyright © 2007 · Magnolia Press

ZOOTAXA ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)

The genitive of species-group scientific names formed from personal names DOUGLAS BRANDON-JONES1, J. W. DUCKWORTH2, PAULINA D. JENKINS3, ANTHONY B. RYLANDS4 & ESTEBAN E. SARMIENTO5 1

22 Karenia Street, Bray Park, QLD 4500, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Wildlife Conservation Society Asia Program. Current address: East Redham Farm, Pilning,Bristol BS35 4JG, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Mammal Group, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (address for correspondence). E-mail: [email protected] 4 Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 5 Research Associate, Mammalogy, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. Email: [email protected] 2

Abstract To avoid confusion with citations of a generic name and its author, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature encourages specific names based on personal names to be instigated in the genitive case. The Latin genitive suffix also indicates the gender and singular or plural state of the modified proper noun. Some zoologists have interpreted Article 31 as stipulating that these latter should always correspond with the gender and singular or plural state of the person or persons commemorated. They believe the original spelling is justifiably emended if, in their view, the author or authors have employed the incorrect suffix. We contend that the gender and singular or plural state of a noun so employed is part of its etymology and unregulated by the Code. The author's selection of suffix should be respected and the original spelling preserved. We offer a rewording of Article 31 to remedy this ambiguity. Key words: Code, emendation, genitive, gender, nomenclature, personal name, sex, species, spelling, suffix, taxonomy

Introduction To avoid confusion with the citation of a generic name and its author, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature encourages an author to instigate in the genitive case a species-group name based on a personal name. The Latin suffix added not only indicates the case but also the gender and singular or plural state of the proper noun forming the species-group name. An author applying the Latin genitive when naming two species of separate genera after male and female family members with the same surname (e.g., Aus browni after Mr Brown and Bus browni after Mrs Brown), has the following options: 1. Aus browni and Bus browni 2. Aus brownae and Bus brownae 3. Aus browni and Bus brownae 4. Aus brownae and Bus browni A surname is a noun, not an adjective. Its gender derives from its etymology which is outside the jurisdiction of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Appendix B5). The English surname Brown has no unequivocal Latin gender and therefore all four above options should be available to an author. Article 31, however, has been interpreted as permitting only the third and fourth options: a species-group name in the

Accepted by A. Dubois: 7 Jul. 2007; published: 2 Aug. 2007

41

genitive case named after a man should invariably be masculine, and one named after a woman should invariably be feminine. This interpretation restricts etymological choice and is etymologically irrational. Brownus and browna, although latinizations of one surname, are nouns as distinct from one another as, for example, stallion is from mare. Brownus is a masculine or neuter noun, browna a feminine one. A zoologist instigating both for members of the same family is creating two surnames (Brownus and Browna) for a family previously with only one. The English language equivalent would be the use of separate surnames for male (maybe Johnson or Stag, etc.) and female (maybe Johndaughter or Doe, etc.) members of the same family. Modern family names are not sexually segregated in this way. Authors describing new species-group taxa are free to employ this naming system, but the Code should specify that subsequent emendation of original spellings to accord with the gender of the person the name commemorates contravenes Article 32.3. This paper contends that the Code does not endorse such unjustified emendation, but that some authors have been misled to an opposite view by the inadequate wording of Article 31. We conclude the paper with a proffered redraft to clarify Article 31.

Current interpretations of Article 31 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Article 31 of the fourth edition (1999) of the Code governs the formation and treatment of species-group names. Article 31.1 deals with names formed from personal names. Such species-group names can be nouns in the genitive case, nominative nouns in apposition, adjectives or participles. Article 31.2 explains that, unlike adjectives and participles, nouns in apposition and unlatinized words need not agree in gender with the generic name. If a species-group name can be both a noun and an adjective (examples are maurus and pyrrhus), and original and prevailing usage as noun or adjective is indecisive, the name is to be treated as a noun in apposition. Groves (1989, 1993) construed Articles 31(a)(ii), 31(a)(iii) and 32(b) of the third edition (1985) (31.1.2, 31.1.3 and 32.3 in the current edition) as requiring emendation of the genitive suffix of a speciesgroup name if it conflicts with the known or assumed sex of the dedicatee, or if it is singular but commemorates more than one person. Because each commemorates a woman (i.e. Miss F[anny1] Waldron, Nancy [Shui Fong2] Ma and Uta Hick, respectively), Groves (2001, pp. 165–166, 169, 252) emended the genitive suffix of Colobus badius waldroni Hayman, 1936 to Piliocolobus b. waldronae; that of Aotus nancymai Hershkovitz, 1983 to A. nancymaae; and that of Chiropotes satanas utahicki Hershkovitz, 1985 to C. s. utahickae. Because it commemorates a man, Groves (1989, p. 124; 1993, p. 255) emended Simia azarae Humboldt, 1812 to Aotus azarai (later retracted, without explanation, in Groves [2001, p. 166]). Because it commemorates more than one person (M. and Mme. Parmentier), Groves (2001, p. 255) emended the genitive suffix of Colobus rufomitratus parmentieri Colyn and Verheyen, 1987 to Piliocolobus foai parmentierorum. If A. nancymaae is accepted as a justified emendation of A. nancymai, Groves (1989, p. 124) must simultaneously be cited as the First Reviser because Ford (1994) employed the alternative feminine genitive form, A. nancymae. Groves (1989) did not originate this approach. Tortonese (in Grubb, 1977, p. 202, footnote) had earlier contended that the genitive suffix of the species-group name Cervulus feae Thomas and Doria, 1889 commemorating a man, Leonardo Fea, should be emended to Muntiacus feai. Mammal checklists, such as Corbet and Hill (1992, p. 261) and Grubb (1993, p. 388), have shunned this emendation, and in his authoritative world checklist, Dickinson (2003) retained the original spelling (as feae) of all five recognized bird speciesgroup names honouring Fea. Hershkovitz (1983, 1985) reasonably treated the surnames Ma and Hick as masculine or neuter. Only the reinstatement of Article 31 in the third edition (1985) of the Code can explain his solecistic treatment as feminine of the (neuter) English surname Brown in dedicating Callicebus personatus

1. 2.

For her full forename, see Findlay et al. (1936, p. 420). For her full forenames, see Ma and Jones (1975, p. 292).

42 · Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press

BRANDON-JONES ET AL.

barbarabrownae to a woman, Barbara E. Brown (Hershkovitz, 1990, p. 77). The word "brown" can vary in gender with context only so long as it remains an adjective. It loses that ability when it becomes a proper noun. Unless the surname had separate derivations in separate branches of the Brown family, the surname can only have one gender. Interpreting the "a" in Ma as a Latin suffix would justify treating this surname as feminine, but so treating Brown flouts grammatical convention. Such unorthodoxy, however, is now enshrined in advice for contributors to the scientific journal, Mammalian Species: "Occasionally, an author using a personal name for a new species-group taxon will use the wrong termination (e.g., smithi [masculine singular] when the author states that the species is named in honor of the Smith brothers; or states that the species or subspecies was named in honor of Joan Smith). The Code requires that subsequent users correct the termination to reflect the appropriate gender or number attributed to the name (e.g., smithi corrected to smithae [feminine singular]; to smitharum [feminine plural]; or to smithorum [masculine plural]). If the author states that the name honors a family, the correct termination is masculine plural (-orum). These changes also are justified emendations and do not affect the original authorship or date" (Gardner & Hayssen, 2004, p. 6). We believe that Article 31.1.2 intended only to recommend that the genitive suffix adopts the gender of the personal name. It need not necessarily match the sex of the dedicatee. A Latin suffix indicates the gender of a noun. Altering the gender of the suffix creates a new noun of different gender. Amending the gender of a proper noun, such as a surname, to match the sex of the bearer effectively renames that person. Scientific nomenclature aims to name taxa, not to rename the dedicatee. An author is free to award the surname the gender of the dedicatee, but enforcing such an irrational method of gender determination is indefensible.

The ambiguities and contradictions of Article 31 in an historical context Imported from the Règles (1905) into the first edition (1961) of the present Code, Article 31 was deleted in 1963 by the XVIth International Congress of Zoology in Washington, and reduced to a Recommendation in the second edition (1964) ([Melville], 1978). It was reinstated as an Article in the third edition (1985) and retained in the fourth (1999). It did not apply when most of the emended names here cited were first published. With the exception of Colobus badius waldroni Hayman, 1936 and Colobus rufomitratus parmentieri Colyn and Verheyen, 1987, emendation of these names can only be justified if the apparent requirements of Article 31.1.2 are considered retrospective. Nothing in the Code suggests that they are. In the summary of Basic Dates in the third edition (1985, p. xx) of the Code, 1984/1985 is given as the watershed date of publication for a name required by Article 32d(i)(2) (now 32.5.2.1) to have the letter "e" inserted after the vowel from which an umlaut has been deleted in a German word. No equivalent date is given for Article 31. The second part of Article 31.1.2 is unambiguous. It specifies that, in forming its genitive, the original author determines the stem of a species-group name formed from an unlatinized modern personal name. Integral to the stem are its gender and singular or plural state indicated by the suffix. The implication (which should be explicit) that these should be preserved would suffice were it not for the prior apparent contradiction that the suffix to be added to the stem of such a species-group name is "-i if the personal name is that of a man" or "-ae if of a woman". The wording appears mandatory, but the absence of reference to Article 31 in Articles 19, 32 and 33 suggests this is inadvertent. The only subsequent reference to Article 31 appears in Article 34 which reiterates that adjectival or participial species-group names must agree in gender with the generic name, and that nouns in apposition need not. For unspecified reasons, appendices have been severely depleted in the current edition (1999) of the Code. Their accuracy was not impugned. Appendix D III.20 in the third edition (1985) was deemed compatible with Article 31, and can guide its interpretation. It recommended that the "Greek or Latin declension should be followed in basing a zoological name on the forename of a modern person, if this is of classical origin, e.g., caroli (from Charles), annae (from Ann, Anna, Anne)". The implication is that, regardless of the

THE GENITIVE OF SPECIES-GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press ·

43

derivation of the forename, the suffix need not be classically correct. If improbably, Article 31.1.2 does require the genitive suffix to follow the sex of the dedicatee or to be plural when commemorating more than one dedicatee, then failure to comply would count as incorrect latinization ineligible for justified emendation (Article 32.5.1). A woman usually shares her father's surname. A surname therefore is neither "that of a man" nor that "of a woman" but both, and so exempted from these apparent instructions. The present wording is lax enough to be misconstrued by those unfamiliar with Latin grammar as designating the genitive suffix -orum for a species-group name formed from a surname which, after all, is the personal name "of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together". This last criticism may seem carping but, as in any legislation, the intent of the Code should be self-evident. We aim only to expose its shortcomings.

Current protection under Article 33 of the original genitive suffix of a species-group name Article 33.5 states that: "In any case of doubt whether a different subsequent spelling is an emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling, it is to be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling (and therefore unavailable), and not as an emendation". There is ample doubt that Article 31 requires emendation of the original genitive suffix of a species-group name commemorating one person by his or her surname. Names thus protected include Simia azarae Humboldt, 1812, Merula feae Salvadori, 1888, Cervulus feae Thomas and Doria, 1889, Colobus badius waldroni Hayman, 1936, Aotus nancymai Hershkovitz, 1983, Chiropotes satanas utahicki Hershkovitz, 1985 and Callicebus personatus barbarabrownae Hershkovitz, 1990. The original spelling of species-group names formed from some forenames may not be salvageable as these may less equivocally contravene the apparent requirements of Article 31.1.2. Intentional or otherwise, the statement: "A speciesgroup name is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -orum if of man and woman together" can only be interpreted to mean that the genitive suffix of Colobus rufomitratus parmentieri Colyn and Verheyen, 1987 should be emended to Piliocolobus foai parmentierorum. This aspect of the Article cannot primarily be intended for forenames as it is improbable any author would dedicate a name to more than one person with the same forename. This emendation may have to stand and other examples may follow. This ambiguity should be expunged from the Code.

The limits of acceptable regulation "Conceiving nomenclatural rules as tools useful only to the point where they provide the maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom," J. Chester Bradley wrote in the preface to the first edition (1961) of the Code that "certain measures have been adopted to prevent them from becoming tyrannical". If correctly interpreted by Tortonese (in Grubb, 1977), Groves (1989, 1993, 2001), Hershkovitz (1990) and Gardner and Hayssen (2004), then Article 31 seems to have over-stepped this self-imposed restraint. Species-group names are rightly regulated by Articles 31.2, 32.4, 32.5 and 34.2, but otherwise their formation should remain the author's prerogative. Most mandatory emendations are intended to eliminate the typographical inconsistencies caused by some names, such as those published with an apostrophe, ligature or diacritic mark, or to avert the potential confusion with subspecific names of multi-word or hyphenated species-group names. The mandatory emendation of the suffix of an adjectival or participial species-group name to agree in gender with that of the generic name with which it is combined, has been criticised for creating inconsistency in information retrieval systems (Sommerer, 2002). Such emendations, although purely grammatical, at least have the merit of usually being self-evident from the context. Amending the genitive suffix of a species-group name serves no practical purpose and requires consultation with the dedication in the original publication, which may not unequivocally settle the issue.

44 · Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press

BRANDON-JONES ET AL.

Latinization of forenames and surnames The Code provides guidance on latinization in Examples and Recommendations. Examples attached to Article 30 assist in the gender determination of genus-group names. Article 30.2.2 requires that Oldfieldthomasia, for example, retains the feminine gender selected by its author, even though named after the male mammalogist, Oldfield Thomas. If the Code permits a genus-group name to be proposed in a gender other than that of the dedicatee, then the same should apply to a genitive species-group name. Authors should not have to emasculate a self-evidently masculine personal name, such as Johnson, when a species-group name derived from it commemorates a woman. The present wording of Article 31 can be interpreted as requiring disregard for the intrinsic gender of surnames. Even if the Code aberrantly desires this, it cannot surely wish to destabilize nomenclature by making this disregard retrospective? Most forenames are gender self-evident. The author barely needs guidance in applying the arguably preferable, but not necessarily obligatory genitive. There is nothing offensive in applying the genitive suffix -i to both sexes because most Latin neuter nouns resemble masculine nouns in declension. For example, although both names derive from the Latin for "pearl", it is appropriate to employ the genitive margaritae for Margarita, which retains the feminine nominative suffix of Romance languages, but it is acceptable to employ the genitive margaretti for Margaret, which does not. Some masculine names, however, such as Aeneas and Anchises, resemble feminine ones in genitive suffix (Aeneae and Anchisae). Names such as Evelyn, Hilary and Leigh are employed for either sex and consequently should be considered neuter. It would be offensive to employ the genitive suffix -ae for such a name applied to a woman, as this implies her parents or guardians erred in selecting a neuter name for her. Such a woman might also rightly be offended by the apparent need to reaffirm her sex. Most surnames are neuter, as in Waldron (probably from a village in Sussex, England) or masculine, as in Johnson. They occasionally look feminine, as in Poda (the example given by Article 31.1.1 of the Code), d'Azara or Fea. The Code (in the above example) recommends the retention of the feminine genitive (podae) for Poda, even though the name commemorates a man (Nicolaus) with a feminine surname. It accepts (seemingly reluctantly, in the example attached to Article 31.1.2) that podai is "admissible". A more imperative adjective would have been used if it was mandatory. The example attached to Article 32.5.2.4.2 reads: "R.P.Podae, a specific name dedicated to Reverendissimus Pater (Most Reverend Father) Poda, becomes podae". The Code thus seems to guide rather than dictate the sex determination of species-group names derived from personal names. If it was regulating, it would stipulate podai as the genitive for a man surnamed Poda. The Code cannot sexually discriminate so, if the feminine gender of a feminine surname is retained when applied to a man, then the masculine gender of a masculine surname should be retained when applied to a woman. An author can treat as neuter a surname of equivocal gender or alternatively, elect to follow Article 30.2.4 governing generic names of obscure gender, and treat it as masculine, unless terminating in an obviously feminine or neuter suffix. Nevertheless, Hershkovitz (1990) was free to treat the surname Brown as feminine. His original spelling should stand. We hope it marks the passing of a quaint interlude in nomenclatural history.

Problems with distinguishing modern from latinized personal names Without defining latinization, Article 31.1.1 requires that the genitive case of a latinized personal name is formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar. The Glossary of the Code inadequately defines the verb to latinize as to "give Latin form and characteristics (including a Latin ending or a Latin suffix) to any word which is not Latin". Some examples, such as the transformation of the Greek Heracles into the Latin Hercules are self-evident but even here, in the examples attached to Article 31.1.1, the Code implies that, if

THE GENITIVE OF SPECIES-GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press ·

45

Hercules is treated as a modern personal name, it need not receive the correct Latin genitive suffix (herculis). Conversely, the same set of examples seems to insist that Pliny should always be latinized (as plinii). Presumably the Code perceives Pliny as an obsolete personal name. Latinization by a linguistic purist would eschew the letters j, k, w and y, permissible in scientific nomenclature (Article 11.2) but absent from the Latin alphabet. By this strict definition, which accords with the Glossary definition of latinization, epithets such as nancymai, utahicki and waldroni which include such letters, remain unlatinized. Others are more equivocal. The name Barbara, for example, derives from the Latin for "foreign" or "uncivilized", originally from the Roman disdain for bearded people (before the emperor Hadrian made beards fashionable). It exists in the feminine declension of the Latin adjective, barbarus, but the Latin noun, barbarus, for "foreigner" or "barbarian", is masculine. It is unlikely Barbara was a personal name in Roman times so, as a feminine noun, it is arguably entirely modern. Linguistic purists would prefer the genitive barbarae, but barbarai (like podai) is not demonstrably incorrect. The addition of the Latin genitive can disguise the author's intention to treat a name as Latin or modern. If an author, without elaboration, used the genitive podae, for example, his intention would be indeterminable. Article 26 specifies that, unless the author states otherwise, a scientific name or final component of a compound name is deemed to be a Greek or Latin word if spelt as such. If the genitive podai is used, is this sufficient indication the author did not consider it a Greek word? If not, is the author contravening Article 31.1.1 in failing to form the genitive case in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar? If so, what, if any, sanctions can or should be imposed? After all, Article 32.5.1 makes incorrect latinization ineligible for justified emendation. Is Article 31.1.1 then redundant?

The aims of Article 31 and its reception Rather than controlling the gender and singular or plural state of species-group names derived from personal names, Article 31.1 apparently aimed to discourage their instigation as nouns in apposition (to avoid confusion with the citation of the authorship of the generic name, see Recommendation 31A); and to discourage the incorporation of a terminal -i into the stem of a modern personal name (producing the genitives -ii, -iorum, iae or -iarum). Article 31.1.1 covers Latin or latinized personal names, while 31.1.2 covers unlatinized ones. As discussed above, these categories are barely distinguishable. The act of adding a Latin suffix can be deemed latinization and some modern names, such as Azara and Fea, provide no scope for further latinization. The Commission might therefore consider abandoning this dichotomy and instead specifying why Article 31 cannot be enforced without exceptions. Appreciating that some Latin or latinized personal names (such as plinii) would be misspelt if the -ii suffix was banned, the compilers of Article 31 evidently felt unable to relax the rules of Latin grammar on all personal names. The awkward compromise was to split personal names into two poorly-defined groups, one of which was allowed to use this suffix if appropriate. The other was discouraged but not prohibited from doing so. Although little-heeded, Article 31 of the first edition (1961) of the Code actually banned epithets in the form of proper nouns in apposition by requiring that all epithets, not just those instigated in the genitive case, must end in -i if based on the personal name of a man, etc. Various zoologists at the XVIth Congress, especially ornithologists, objected that this forced a spelling change in too many long-accepted names. The replacement wording in Recommendation 31A of the second edition (1964) of the Code was "should usually end in…" [Melville] (1978, p. 79) noted that Recommendation 31A was inconsistent with Article 32a (now Article 32.3). The "first challenges names changed in the past to correct incorrect genitives (e.g. an -i ending in a name dedicated to a woman, and properly corrected to -ae); the second requires that the original spelling of a name is to be retained". Resenting the nuisance of having to trace the originally-employed suffix, Spilman (1979) sought clarification as to whether the -ii suffix was allowed. Twenty Commissioners backed and three opposed the restoration of Article 31 (Melville, 1980, p. 212). Endorsing the verdict, Stensoffa (in

46 · Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press

BRANDON-JONES ET AL.

Melville, 1980, p. 211) proposed that the author determines the stem and whether the patronymic is modern or latinized. Without specifying his concept of incorrectly-formed genitives, he urged their mandatory correction. Neither he nor [Melville] (1978) discussed the implications for nomenclatural stability. This seems the sum total of published debate on the reinstatement of Article 31, which unequivocally incorporated (in the second part of Article 31.1.2) only the proviso about the stem. Even if approved, emendation of "incorrect" genitives is surely applicable only to names published when Article 31 applied?

Discussion Draft for a revised Article 31 Presumably aiming for simplicity, the compilers of Article 31.1 seem to have over-zealously restrained their use of grammatical vocabulary in outlining the formation of the genitive suffix. They evidently overlooked the inadvertent implications of their phraseology. If this explanation for the ambiguous wording is correct, then Article 31.1.2 might now read: "A species-group name, if a noun formed in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) from a[n unlatinized modern] personal name, is normally to be formed by adding the masculine or neuter singular genitive suffix -i to the stem of that name. The orthography of the stem, its gender and singular or plural state is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive. If the gender of the personal name, but not necessarily that of the dedicatee(s), is considered feminine, the singular genitive suffix -ae may be used for one dedicatee, or the plural genitive suffix -arum for more than one dedicatee. If more than one dedicatee shares a masculine or neuter personal name, the plural genitive suffix -orum is optional." If the words in square parentheses are omitted, then Article 31.1.1 can probably be discarded. If it is to be retained, it should be appended with a sentence clearly distinguishing modern from Latin or latinized names, without conflicting with Article 26 (see above). If the main aim of Article 31 is to encourage simplicity and conformity, then an alternative approach might be to specify a date after which all subsequently published species-group names formed from personal names, whether Latin, latinized or modern, may not be nouns in apposition, and must end in the neuter genitive suffix -i. Such an ending would apply regardless of the normal declension of the proper noun used, the sex of the dedicatee, or when more than one was commemorated. The use of a terminal -i in the stem would be prohibited. The original stem and suffix of all such names published before the cut-off date would be preserved unaltered. To so restrict individual freedom to create imaginative species-group names seems unnecessarily Draconian, but such regulation is preferable to undue interference in the original spelling of established names. We thank Colin Groves and the late Peter Grubb for their comments on this paper.

References Colyn, M.M. & Verheyen, W.N. (1987) Colobus rufomitratus parmentieri, une nouvelle sous-espèce du Zaire (Primates, Cercopithecidae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine, 101, 125–132. Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J. E. (1992) The Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: A Systematic Review. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dickinson, E. C. (Ed.) (2003) The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, third edition. Christopher Helm, London. Findlay, G.M., Stefanopoulo, G.J., Davey, T.H. & Mahaffy, A.F. (1936) Yellow fever immune bodies in the blood of African animals: Preliminary observations. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 29, 419–424. Ford, S. M. (1994) Taxonomy and distribution of the owl monkey. In Aotus: The Owl Monkey. Academic Press, London, pp. 1–57. Gardner, A.L. & Hayssen, V. (2004) A guide to constructing and understanding synonymies for Mammalian Species. Mammalian Species, 739, 1–17.

THE GENITIVE OF SPECIES-GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press ·

47

Groves, C.P. (1989) A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Groves, C.P. (1993) Order Primates. In: Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.) Mammal Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic reference, 2nd edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, pp. 243–277. Groves, C.P. (2001) Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C, viii + 350 pp. Grubb, P. (1977) Notes on a rare deer, Muntiacus feai. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Di Genova, 81, 202– 207. Grubb, P. (1993) Order Artiodactyla. In: Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.) Mammal Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic reference, 2nd edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, pp. 377–414. Hayman, R.W. (1936) On a collection of mammals from the Gold Coast. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1935, 915–937. Hershkovitz, P. (1983) Two new species of night monkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A preliminary report on Aotus taxonomy. American Journal of Primatology, 4, 209–243. Hershkovitz, P. (1985) A preliminary taxonomic review of the South American bearded saki monkeys genus Chiropotes (Cebidae, Platyrrhini), with a description of a new subspecies. Fieldiana Zoology (new ser.), 27, 1–46. Hershkovitz, P. (1990) Titis, New World monkeys of the genus Callicebus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A preliminary taxonomic review. Fieldiana Zoology (new ser.), 55, 1–109. Humboldt, [F.H.] A. (1812) Tableau synoptique des singes de l'Amérique. In: Humboldt, [F. H.] A. & Bonpland, A. [J. A]. Recueil d'observations de zoologie et d'anatomie comparée, faites dans l'océan Atlantique, dans l'intérieur du nouveau continent et dans la mer du sud pendant les années 1799[–]1803. Premier volume. Deuxième partie. Observations de zoologie et d'anatomie comparée. Schoell and Dufour & Co, Paris, pp. 353–363. Ma, N.S.F. & Jones, T.C. (1975) Added heterochromatin segments in chromosomes of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Folia Primatologica, 24, 282–292. [Melville, R.V.] (1978) Further amendments proposed to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 35, 77–81. Melville, R.V. (1980) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (second instalment) Z.N.(G.) 182. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 37, 196–215. Salvadori, T. (1888) Diagnosi di nuove specie di uccelli del Tenasserim, raccolte dal Sig. Leonardo Fea. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Di Genova, (2)5, 514–516. Sommerer, M.D. (2002) To agree or not to agree—the question of gender agreement in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Nota Lepidopterologica, 25, 191–204. Spilman, T.J. (1979) Comment on Recommendation 31A and Article 33d. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 35, 150– 151.

48 · Zootaxa 1541 © 2007 Magnolia Press

BRANDON-JONES ET AL.