The current International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) prescribes how to form the genitive case for personal names that are not of Latin form and that end in a consonant other than er. Article 60.8(b) specifies that the genitive for masculine nouns is formed by adding ii (singular) or iorum (plural), and for feminine nouns by adding iae (sing.) or iarum (pl.). Thus, one would render the genitive of the personal name “Smith” as, depending on the gender and number, smithii or smithiorum, or as smithiae or smithiarum.

Latin grammar books (e.g. LaFleur, Wheelock's Latin, ed. 7. 2011), however, prescribe a slightly different set of genitive endings for these nouns: namely, for masculine, i (sing.) or orum (pl.), and for feminine, ae (sing.) or arum (pl.). As many taxonomists have probably noted, these endings are used by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ed. 4, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999), resulting in names such as Paramecium woodruffi (honouring Woodruff, masculine) and P. grohmannae (honouring Grohmann, feminine). Therefore, by comparison, it would appear that the Shenzhen Code requires an extra i between the noun and its genitive case ending. This interpolated i is called a “stem augmentation” in Art. 60.8(b) and (d). Why does the Shenzhen Code apparently use different endings than those of classical Latin and the zoological Code?

Actually, the Shenzhen Code uses the same endings as in classical Latin and the zoological Code. The difference is how the Shenzhen Code creates the stem of the noun to which the genitive endings are added. The process is thus: the surname “Smith” is first put into Latin form by adding ius, resulting in smithius. Note that this process gives rise to stem augmentation because the interpolated i is part of the newly latinized stem. The genitive is then formed by the normal rules of Latin grammar: the us is dropped, resulting in smithi, and then the appropriate genitive ending is added. If the word is a masculine singular noun, i is added, resulting in smithii; or if plural, orum is added, resulting in smithiorum. Nowhere is this process explained in the Code. It should be. Without an explanation, taxonomists will not understand how a stem augmentation arises. Also, they will not readily appreciate why names already of Latin form lack a stem augmentation and end in a single i, as when, for example, Hieronymus (meaning “Jerome”) is inflected with only one i, resulting in hieronymi. To address this deficiency in the Code, we propose the following amendments to Art. 60.8 clauses (b) and (d) and Ex. 17, and a new entry in the Glossary defining “stem augmentation”.

当前的藻类，真菌和植物国际命名法（深圳法; Turland等人于Regnum Veg.159.2018）规定了如何为非拉丁形式且以``。er以外的辅音。第60.8（b）条规定，通过加ii（单数）或iorum（复数）来形成男性名词的属格，而通过添加iae（单数）或iarum（pl。）来形成女性名词的格言。因此，一个人称“史密斯”（Smith）为个人的称谓语，取决于性别和数字，史密斯（smitii）或史密斯（smithiorum），还是史密斯（smitiae）或铁匠铺。

但是，拉丁文的语法书籍（例如LaFleur，Wheelock的拉丁文，于2011年第7版。）规定了这些名词的稍微不同的同族结尾集：即，男性，i（单数）或orum（复数），以及女性，ae（单数）或arum（pl。）。正如许多分类学家所指出的那样，国际动物学名称法典（第4版，国际动物学命名法委员会，1999年）使用了这些结尾，因此产生了Paramecium woodruffi（尊敬的Woodruff，男性化）和P. grohmannae（纪念格罗曼（女性）。因此，相比之下，《深圳守则》似乎需要额外i在名词及其属格格之间结束。这种内插的i在艺术中​​被称为“词干增强”。60.8（b）和（d）。为什么深圳法典显然使用了与古典拉丁文和生态学法典不同的结尾？

实际上，《深圳守则》的结尾与古典拉丁文和《动物学守则》相同。所不同的是，《深圳法典》是如何创建名词的词干的，而名词的词干被添加到该词干中。因此，过程是：首先通过添加ius将姓氏“ Smith”转换为拉丁语形式，从而得到smithius。请注意，由于内插的i是新拉丁化的词干的一部分，因此此过程会引起词干增强。然后，由拉丁文语法的常规规则形成所有格：将us删除，得到smithi，然后添加适当的所有格结尾。如果该单词是男性单数名词，我加，导致史密斯ii；或者，如果增加了复数，那么orum会导致smithiorum。《守则》中没有任何地方解释此过程。它应该是。如果没有解释，分类学家将不会理解茎的扩增是如何产生的。而且，他们不会轻易理解为什么已经具有拉丁形式的名称缺少词干增强功能并以单个i结尾，例如，当Hieronymus（意思是“ Jerome”）仅用一个i进行变形时，会导致hieronymi。为了解决《守则》中的这一缺陷，我们建议对Art进行以下修改。60.8（b）和（d）以及Ex。17，术语表中的新条目定义了“词干增强”。