Pay and describe it

This topic is very interesting. If a person provided sponsorship, this is a normal reason to perpetuate it.
And this was very common in the history of zoology and botany. All sorts of governors-general, old smart moneybags, etc.
Very interested in what kind of grants Berezovsky? I didn't hear it.
To be honest, I would describe a great fat cossida for cash. Easy!

The main thing is that it is not reduced to synonyms later. For free.

so far, they don't seem to be bringing anything together, even for money
, the group is very muddy for most people

True, I got into a homonymy with two genera, and the replacement names were given by two odious Turks-Kemal and Kochak, who only do what they give replacement names in the presence of living authors, spitting on the Moral articles of the Code. So they "beat" Zolotukhin, Sinev, Eichberger, Schintlmeister and others.

In response, I wanted to describe a taxon from Turkey and name it skobelevi, but I resisted and named this species after my favorite. What seemed to me better than inflating an international conflict )) .

And where can I find a complete database of generic animal names?
No matter how hard I tried, I didn't find it.
And of course I used the record but only for my own group

All these databases are up to a certain year and with a certain degree of reliability, or rather unreliability. Not everything gets into the same ZR, but what gets there-sometimes with many years of delay.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 09/27/2009 13: 14

In general, giving "meaningful" names is scary, the chances of getting into homonyms are too high.
I myself use prefixes or suffixes for the generic group, and you can also use geographical derivatives-Songmaella.

I Googled it and didn't find' Songmaella ' at all. Another argument in favor of posting a list of described taxa on the Web!

Thank you for your recommendations
, for some reason I didn't guess when I described it.
Of course, not everything is included in the PO, but this is still the best option right now.

Thank you for your recommendations
, for some reason I didn't guess when I described it.
Of course, not everything is included in the PO, but it's still the best option right now.

Index Animalium and Nomenclator Zoologicus are also useful to watch. moreover, they are available online.

It would be interesting to know how many new species each of those who voted in this topic described, and how they were guided in choosing the name of their godson?

more than 200. he was guided by the names of collectors (gurkoi, saldaitisi, nussi, brechlini), major entomologists (kerzhneri, sinevi, witti), geographers, botanists who worked in this region (kamelini, shmakovi, sapozhnikovi, przhevalskyi, livingstoni), colleagues in expeditions (smirnovi, germani, kosachevi), historical figures (bisudu, rambuasalama), mythological companions (akoene, aphrodite), close people (elenae, artushka, renatae). Yes, and there are still a certain number of patronyms - one genus and a dozen species-subspecies (beetles, butterflies)

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 27.09.2012 10: 48