Flag for Taxon: Gilthead Seabream (Sparus auratus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pierrecorbrion | Gilthead Seabream (Sparus auratus) |
the name is Sparus aurata (and not Sparus auratus) |
Aug. 29, 2023 20:35:24 +0000 | kitty12 |
Swap done |
Comments
We follow Catalogue of Fishes on this https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide, and they have it as valid: Current status: Valid as Sparus auratus Linnaeus 1758. https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
Okay, thank you.
Hi both.
@kitty12, firstly, I support you with the resolution of clarifying the justification.
But, can we please keep this flag open a couple of days - with such issues, i'm interested in how/why different name providers are being inconsistent, and here i think i see why Eschmeyer's Catalog is arguably wrong on the formation of that name. I've emailed the leads with a request to clarify and put forward my interpretation why 'aurata' seems preferable - the essence being if we can interpret that Linneaus was using 'aurata' as a noun, then any suffix should not be modified. To me it seems very likely a noun - that latin word was used as a noun for this very same fish, basically the Romans calling it "Gold(fish)", but eqivalent Aurata -> Orata -> Dourada -> etc.
@sjl197 Sure.
Just an update, via some external emails, some new consensus on the issue seems to be on horizon - sounds like we could see external updates in 'a few more' days. Please keep open issue still.
@kitty12
Eschmeyer's Catalog now did their monthly update, it now has
"Current status: Valid as Sparus aurata"
"We now treat the species epithet as an indeclinable noun."
https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
Would you please enact the swap if agree.
Swap committed.
Surely autatus, -a, -um is an adjective? See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auratus. And if it is to be treated as a noun why is
it not auratum, neuter singular rather than aurata, neuter plural?
@kitty12 - Thanks. It's almost like multiple resources are now nearly using name in same way!
@beetledude - Now i'm scared you will say different if i explain a bit below!
@john_hepburn
I think that's the essence of why it became 'auratus' for some if the genus is masculine, and if it was an adjective/participle then auratus (masculine, nominative singular) could be technically correct.
In such cases, the suffix depends on the gender of the genus, I expected that could be masculine, which i guess others in past also did - The word seem to match a masculine noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sparus#Latin
One thing i learnt from emails with people at Eschmeyer's catalog is that there was discussion with ICZN back in around 1955, where the formalised the genus name as masculine (although the core argument seems to be over which species was the original 'type' species - the one to define it)
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34652874#page/401/mode/1up
However, that paper (unless i missed it) does not clarify the formation of the species name.
If take it a [possible] noun - i'm not sure how you get to "auratum/aurata" - such a rule would apply if it were a second declension neuter noun. Looking across resources, it seemed ok as a first declension feminine, that would then be ie. aurata/auratae
e.g. per https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aurata#Latin
One critical thing then: the regulating body on nomenclature (ICZN) say if a name can be interpreted as both a noun and an adjective, then -> treat as a noun.
The original format is critical to help with some decisions - it's here p.277
Sparus aurata Linneaus 1758
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/726886#page/299/mode/1up
If say 'aurata' was interpreted as being a second declension neuter noun - it would also need to explain why the plural was being used originally to name the species rather than singular.
With a feminine looking species suffix on a masculine genus, it really seemed the smoothest solution to explain why Linnaeus did not write in in the masculine adjective form 'auratus" by seeing it as a feminine first declension noun (being used in nominative singular). As said above, in various modern romance languages they're using a similar name to "Aurata" (e.g. Orata, Dorada) as a noun, so it really seems like Linneaus was taking his species name from the latin noun for the exact same fish. He did the same with others like Sargus (later as "Sargo" etc) becoming his "Sparus sargus Linnaeus, 1758". See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sargus
https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=127065