Chrysotus edwadsi

ruzuzu Brackets around "scrivener's error," "paraphyletic," and "demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5," please. Aug 8, 2010

mollusque I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know, there is only one original genus in which edwardsi Van Duzee, 1930 was introduced, and whether the genus is paraphyletic is not relevant to the spelling of the specific name. Also, the nomenclatural rules do not require "authority"; they can be applied by anyone who has an interest. In this case the rule is Article 32.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: "The original spelling of a name is the 'correct original spelling', unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5." There is no doubt that Chrysotus edwardsi is the correct spelling. Aug 7, 2010

hernesheir Thanks! mollusque. In my comment I chose to leave out the spaghetti-mess of the synonymy with the other (original) genus where edwardsi is applied, and in which citation the error occurred. Entomologists will straighten it out soon enough when the paraphyletic relationship of the two genera involved are resolved. Not a Wordnik problem or quest, in my judgement. And even if we resolved it, it wouldn't have the authority required by nomenclatural rules. Aug 7, 2010

mollusque You surmise correctly, the original spelling is "edwardsi". Why didn't you list that spelling? Aug 7, 2010

hernesheir Both Chrysotus edwadsi and C. edwardsi appear in taxonomic lists. The former, listed here, is likely a scrivener's error. Both names are euryvocalic - all the vowels once, plus the wye. Aug 7, 2010