 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Adam Britton on April 06, 2003 at 19:43:10:
In Reply to: Re: posted by Ralf Sommerlad on April 06, 2003 at 17:27:07:
But the rules of nomenclature have been changed before. There is a good case for C. johnstoni in some respects, as the vast majority of peer-reviewed publications use the term "johnstoni". Alligator "mississipiensis" was corrected to "mississippiensis" on a similar basis.
What has happened is that the Australians essentially declared the rules of nomenclature to be "off with the fairies" regarding this pedantic debate, and hence have used (and always will use) C. johnstoni. Technically, though, it should be "C. johnstonii" because it was named after a person.
Incidentally, the proper "common" name for the species is "Johnstone's crocodile".
You can read more detail about this debate on the link below...
Adam
:You are absolutely right, Colin, but these are the rules of nomenclature....
::Howdy.
::The official name is actually Crocodylus johnsoni. That's what was first proposed.
::However, it was a mistake, in that it should have been C johnstoni (based on the spelling of its name-sake). The way the zoological naming works, though, is that it is difficult to have it officially changed to johnstoni. I'm sure this change will happen, though.
::So, you will read both variations depending on the book you read, although C johnstoni is the more popular choice.
::Hope this helps explain it a tad.
::Colin
:
:
