English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Dickinson et al. (2017) take us to task for misguided interpretation of Art. 31.2.2 of the International code of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999), hereafter the Code, and for overreach in arguing that ‘gender agreement for species-group names is the single biggest cause of nomenclatural instability in zoology’ (Schodde & Bock 2016). Conflation is the argument of false analogy; and here we explain how Dickinson et al. (2017) use it to mistake our meaning of Art. 31.2.2, misjudge the noun / adjective status of Tanagra bresilia Linnaeus, and misrepresent the impact of gender agreement on species names. As a consequence, we offer suggestions to resolve those ambiguities in Art. 31.2.2 that open it to conflicting interpretation.

bulletin of the british ornithologists' club

Interpreting Article 31.2.2 of the Code,<i>Tanagra bresilia</i>Linnaeus, and gender agreement—a response to Dickinson<i>et al.</i>(2017) towards more positive outcomes

Interpreting Article 31.2.2 of the Code,Tanagra bresiliaLinnaeus, and gender agreement—a response to Dickinsonet al.(2017) towards more positive outcomes