Masculine or femininine? Lagonibelus beaumontian-us or -a

[TqB]

Can a better linguist than I (not hard!) help out here?

 

The belemnite species suffix for Lagonibelus beaumontiana (d'Orbigny) would presumably be based on "belus" being feminine.

 

However, original Russian sources give it as "L. beaumontianus" and other belemnite genera with the same element (Pleurobelus, Gastrobelus etc.) all have masculine species endings.

 

I know gender endings can be tricky and -us isn't always masculine but there seems to be widespread discrepancy here.

(The London NHM and Martill & Hudson's Fossils of the Oxford Clay both go with beaumontiana and we should be able to trust them to get it right...) 

[Miocene_Mason]

I’m no linguist, but whatever it was first described as, even if it may have been assigned the wrong gender, should be assumed the correct spelling, right? In other words, if D’Orbigny says iana, that’s what it is. If that’s not what he said, then it’s not.

[TqB]

15 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

I’m no linguist, but whatever it was first described as, even if it may have been assigned the wrong gender, should be assumed the correct spelling, right? In other words, if D’Orbigny says iana, that’s what it is. If that’s not what he said, then it’s not.

 

Not true, I'm afraid, the gender should match any subsequent genus change (although d'Orbigny's 1842 original was indeed Belemnites Beaumontianus, with the incorrect species upper case as well.  )

[abyssunder]

I think there is a widespread discrepancy having nothing to do with the sexual delimitation, it might be the authors designation related to the binomial name, nothing more. There are lot of examples showing the species names changed along time. Latins usually assigned the origin to paternity, not to maternity.

[TqB]

21 hours ago, abyssunder said:

I think there is a widespread discrepancy having nothing to do with the sexual delimitation, it might be the authors designation related to the binomial name, nothing more. There are lot of examples showing the species names changed along time. Latins usually assigned the origin to paternity, not to maternity.

 

Yes, but the genders still have to agree under ICZN rules. For example, Belemnites apicicurvatus became Passaloteuthis apicurvata. The problem for ordinary mortals is working out the gender of the genus element.  

[abyssunder]

I'm not so good in the ICZN Code, but I think the predecessors don't thought about anything related to the sexual delimitation, dimorphism or what is actually related to.

 

" The rules in the Code apply to all users of zoological names. However, its provisions can be interpreted, waived, or modified in their application to a particular case when strict adherence would cause confusion. Such exceptions are not made by an individual scientist, no matter how well-respected within the field, but only by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it. " - Wikipedia

[Miocene_Mason]

I have one thing to add, I don’t know any Latin but I believe neutral words are assigned “a” at the end in some cases, which could be the reason for the clashing genders. 

[TqB]

6 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

I have one thing to add, I don’t know any Latin but I believe neutral words are assigned “a” at the end in some cases, which could be the reason for the clashing genders. 

 

That may well be the solution. I'm going to ask my son-in-law who's a classical scholar.