Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I thought this might be of some interest to some here, and since I posted about this on another site, I figured it would be intersting to post it here as well. Some already know about this, while I'm quite sure many do not.........

There is LOTS of confusion on the correct spelling of this to most folks, and it is found in in many books used interchangeably and spelled either way, but I also refer to them as "multistriata" as well, which was the original spelling (Kenicott 1861). I have no freakin idea of WHY, or WHO later "corrected" it to multistrata, or even if it was by accident from a typo, etc... In any case, per ~Sytematics by Kenneth Williams~, " he found no reason to deviate from the original spelling of "multistriata" as the given protocol states........"Article 32 of the ICZN(3rd edition, 1985) states that the original spelling of a species name is to be used unless it can be shown utilizing the original description that an error occurred. Thus since there is nothing in Kenicott to indicate that multistriata is in error, I am reverting to the original spelling instead of multistrata".......end quote from Williams.

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

I prefer the term Lampropeltis Pale Milkis. Easy that way.LOL.

Very good and interesting post. Does that mean I have to learn Latin all over again? LOL!

Scott

Yeah, there was also a little foot-note at the bottom of the page where Williams says...quote... "Geesh!, screw all this different name stuff, you guys can call it whatever the hell ya want,...I'm callin it a freakin PALE!"

HAHAHAAA!!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Hahahaha! Works for me.

Scott

Dell and I have had this discussion many times, and have both switched from using multistriata to using multistrata as a result.

In Kennicott's original, printed description of the form in 1861, the subspecific epithet was spelled "multistriata". However, later that same year, Edward Drinker Cope (THE Cope of biological fame) printed a correction stating that the typist/publisher of Kennicott's description had published it with a "typo", thereby desecrating multistrata by adding an extra "i", and causing the discussion we're now having! Do we let publisher's typos affect nomenclature? I do believe there's a precedent for that: No.

Thoughts?

-Cole

Wow Colester!, that is EXACTLY what I was looking for bro!, in regards to the name change in the first place. Very interesting indeed Cole, and I'm glad you helped clear that up.

I see no reason to not use multistrata then either, as it is all just unclarified misinformation. This is certainly some info that is little known about to most people.

Glad you chimed in with it Cole!

~Doug

-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Doug,

Thanks, man. I can always be convinced to change my mind, though. That's part of that scientific background, I guess. I'll tentatively accept the hypothesis with the greatest supporting evidence. Right now, I just don't see any reason to add that extra "i". Hopefully someone will chime in and challenge my points!

I added some info in the place this discussion began...

-Cole

Yeah, I saw that, and commented on it there too..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Cole,

Your reasoning is pretty sound, I'll give you that. But 'striata' in latin also means 'parallel lines'. I can see that with pales. They are quite regularly spaced and for the most part their rings remain the same width from their dorsum to venter. So, 'multistriata' literally means 'many parallel lines'. Now, from my point of view, seeing as how the original taxonomic nomenclature had the extra 'i' in it, unless it absolutely doesn't make sense (which isn't the case), then shouldn't we stick with it? Just my two cents. Don't worry, we can argue countless hours over it this spring out in the field! Ha.

Mitch

wake me in april
-----

Doug L

Does a definition accompany either spelling that would make one more fitting over the other? I don't speak Latin.

Well, the funny thing about BOTH the spellings, is they can probably both be interpreted as meaning basically the same thing....multi-striata(many striations, or furrowed, grooved, lines), and multi-strata(many, or several layers).

But despite any of this, Cole's evidence of how the name got accidentally changed from a typo in the first place leads me to think that multi-STRATA would be the better accepted term, but who the hell am I to the to the taxonomic member board that debates these things..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

At this point I would simply use an accepted acronym(MS)but I'd surely be accused of some kind of wonderfully complicated insensitivity toward an incurable illness.....The wonder of Latin is that its actually USEFUL in description. JMHO