Panaque suttonorum & ICZN Article 32.5.1.

[racoll]

A question which has been bothering me for quite some time, but never got round to posting:

Panaque suttoni Schultz was emended to Panaque suttonorum Isbrücker on the basis that it was named after a couple (Dr. and Mrs. Fredrick A. Sutton), so ending should be "orum", rather than a male individual (ending "i"), as published.

However, according to "The Code" this is an unjustified emendation, so Panaque suttonorum Isbrücker would become a junior objective synonym of Panaque suttoni Schultz.

There seems to be very few cases where the name should actually be changed, and this doesn't appear to be one of them.

If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.

Any other emendation is an "unjustified emendation"; the name thus emended is available and it has its own author and date and is a junior objective synonym of the name in its original spelling; it enters into homonymy and can be used as a substitute name

Anyone else think this is correct?

[Silurus]

Schultz did provide an etymology for the species:

Named suttoni in honor of Dr. and Mrs. Frederick A. Sutton, who were very kind to me while I stayed at the camp of the Lago Petroleum Corporation in Maracaibo.

According to Article 31.1.2 of the code:

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.

One can then argue that Schultz was guilty of a lapsus calami in the original description.

If no etymology was provided in the original description, then one cannot emend the specific epithet to the correct form (e.g. no etymology was provided in the original description of Olyra horae, and even though it is plainly evident that the species is named after Sunder Lal Hora and should be emended to horai, the emendation cannot be utilized by strict application of the Code).

[racoll]

Genius!

I had always wondered why P. suttoni could be changed, and Danio choprae for example could not be changed!

Thank you.

I am satisfied, so I guess this thread can be moved to resolved.