missgecko wrote:One thing I don't understand is when you talk about the (o) or o-declension. Apart from that am I right in saying that, for example, Bob Kershaw spotted a butterfly and he liked the name Vanessa so decided to call it Vanessa kershawi ?
Latin grammar was never my strong point (!), so this "genitive singular" stuff is all Greek to me. The other part, though, I think I understand.
The butterfly's full name is "
Vanessa kershawi (McCoy)". This means it belongs to the genus
Vanessa and was named
kershawi by McCoy. I don't know this specific instance, but usually such names are assigned
in recognition of the other person, Kershaw in this case.
The name
Vanessa was established long before that to identify a collection of different kinds of butterflies that are closely related, but not quite closely enough to interbreed with each other. This grouping is called a "genus".
The task of assigning a name to a new butterfly essentially consists of 1) deciding what other butterflies it is most closely related to (and thus determining the genus), and then 2) choosing a name for the new butterfly.
Of course later work can determine that the butterfly was misplaced, in which case it moves to a different genus. Or it can determine that the newly named butterflies are not really a separate species but instead interbreed with some other butterflies that were named earlier. In that case the new ones become "subspecies" and the name changes again. Usually there is ongoing debate about these things, either because the situation is not yet clear, or because the situation
is clear but is intrinsically ambiguous, such as some interbreeding but not much and with reduced viability.
In a quick search, it looks to me that
Vanessa kershawi illustrates most of these aspects! See for example the discussion
HERE, regarding its relationship with
Vanessa cardui.
--Rik