Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article31
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:49:42+00:00

Document:
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, or is in a form corresponding to a Latin name, 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).
Recommendation 31A. Avoidance of personal names as nouns in apposition. An author who establishes a new species-group name based on a personal name should preferably form the name in the genitive case and not as a noun in apposition, in order to avoid the appearance that the species-group name is a citation of the authorship of the generic name.
Examples. Gould (1841) established the specific name geoffroii in the genus Dasyurus Geoffroy, 1796. Had he proposed geoffroy as a noun in apposition, the combination Dasyurus geoffroy would have been confusing and misleading. Names such as Picumnus castelnau and Acestrura mulsant, in which the specific names are identical to personal names, are also confusing (and especially so when the specific name is wrongly given an upper case initial letter [Art. 28]).
31.2. Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined.
31.2.1. A species-group name that is a simple or compound noun (or noun phrase) in apposition need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1).
Examples. The specific name in Simia diana (Simia and diana both feminine) remains unchanged in Cercopithecus diana (Cercopithecus masculine); and the noun phrases in Melanoplus femurrubrum (Melanoplus masculine; but rubrum agreeing with femur, neuter) and Desmometopa m-nigrum (Desmometopa feminine; nigrum neuter, agreeing with m, because letters of the alphabet are neuter).
31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1).
Example. Species-group names ending in -fer and -ger may be either nouns in apposition, or adjectives in the masculine gender. Cephenemyia phobifer (Clark) has often been used as C. phobifera, but the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer; since Oestrus is masculine, phobifer in that binomen may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition; hence it is to be treated as a noun in apposition and not changed when combined with the feminine generic name Cephenemyia.
31.2.3. If a species-group name (or, in the case of a compound species-group name, its final component word) is not a Latin or latinized word [Arts. 11.2, 26], it is to be treated as indeclinable for the purposes of this Article, and need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined (the original spelling is to be retained, with ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1).
Example. Species-group names such as melas, melaina, melan; polychloros, polychloron; celebrachys; nakpo (from the Tibetan word meaning black) remain unchanged when transferred from combination with a generic name of one gender to combination with one of another gender. But melaena is a latinized adjective (derived from the Greek melaina) and must be changed when so transferred, with an appropriate Latin gender ending (-us masculine, -um neuter).
Subject of another debate on the [iczn-list] mailing list in June 2015, which suggested that the number of incorrectly formed Latin genitives is steadily increasing.
Art. 31.1.3 is unclear in that it does not allow to correct an incorrect spelling (instead it shifts to Art. 32.3 and 32.4 where corrections are only allowed for inadvertent errors).
I would suggest to downgrade Art. 31.1 to a set of recommendations, and add a clear statement in Art. 32.5 that incorretly formed Latin genitives are not to be corrected.
In modern times a decreasing number of zoologists know Latin, and names are quite immediately entered to ZooBank without a proper check for correct Latin genitives. It is not desirable and not in the sense of stability that a name of a Chinese insect is changed after 100 years just because someone comes across it who knows Latin. Names entered to ZooBank should not be changed in their spelling afterwards, unless absolutely necessary.
In my posting from 2009-11-13 16:30:18 "one one male" should read "female".
If gender agreement is not removed, this Article should be modified.
31.2 A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, should agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined. Incorrect gender agreement does not affect availability of new names.
This is necessary as became clear from a discussion initiated by Mike Taylor in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Feb 2011, who believed that Art. 31.2 would render a new name unavailable if established with an incorrect ending.
2-3 % of European mollusc species were established with incorrect endings. If neuter gender was involved, 30 %.
Stability is also an objective of the Code. A ruling could be useful concerning treatment of species that were never published with their correct endings and are exclusively known with incorrect endings. Treatment of many lepidopteran species could be integrated in the Code.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 31.1 should be modified, its main contents largely removed.
"31.1. Species-group names formed from personal names. Species-group names formed from personal names should be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar. If a name is not formed correctly, the original spelling is to be maintained and must not be corrected. The incorrect application of the rules of Latin grammar is not considered as an inadvertent error (Art. 32.5)."
It is nice to explain how to form correct Latin words, because today no taxonomist knows any more how to do this correctly.
But the Code is not the right place for such a teaching.
It should be made clear that if a name was incorrectly formed, the spelling must remain in the incorrect form and must not be changed under Art. 32.5.
Art. 31.1.3 does not say this clearly enough because the term "incorrect" as used here is widely misunderstood (taxonomists understand this term as in an English dictionary and not as defined under the given Articles, and they think that smithi was incorrect if the name was dedicated to a woman).
We had several discussions in the [iczn-list] mailing list and saw that in some disciplines "incorrect" smithi names were changed to smithae if taxonomists found out that the dedicated person was one one male. We also found out that names were only sometimes corrected, in no discipline (including fishes) this has been done consistently. It is a continuous threat for names which eventually "must" be changed if somebody finds out to which persons the name was (implicitely or explicitely?) dedicated.
It was more or less commonly agreed to give a clear rule in the Code as I have outlined above, and to solve the few cases were "corrected" names are currently frequently used internally or by the prevailing usage rule.
31.2. Agreement in gender not required. An adjectival species-group name does not need to agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined.

References: Art. 31
 Art. 32
 Art. 31
 Art. 32
 Art. 31
 Art. 31
 Art. 32

Art. 31