ON THE SPELLING OF TROCHULUS LUBOMIRSKII VS . LUBOMIRSKI ( ŒLÓSARSKI , 1881 ) ( GASTROPODA : PULMONATA : HYGROMIIDAE ) – THE OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW

The paper discusses arguments for the preservation of the original spelling of the species-level name for Trochulus lubomirski (Œlósarski, 1881) versus arguments for the preservation of the amended spelling lubomirskii. The authors argue that the obvious “prevailing usage” of the spelling lubomirskii should be taken as the decisive argument to preserve this form of spelling under Art. 33.3.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.


INTRODUCTION
encountered a nomenclatural problem with the correct spelling of the species-level name of the land snail Trochulus lubomirskii (OElósarski, 1881).They argued for the spelling "lubomirski" because such spelling was used by OELÓSARSKI (1881) in his original description of the species.They analysed the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) considering that Arts. 31.1,32.2,32.3,33.3,33.4 and 33.5 as well as Recom-mendation 31A were relevant to the case, and moreover supported their point of view that the correct spelling is "lubomirski".On the other hand they have rejected Art.33.2.3.1 that permits preservation of the spelling "lubomirskii" when this form of spelling is considered to be in "prevailing usage".After the analysis of the same Articles of the Code (ICZN 1999) we have come to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the spelling "lubomirskii" should be preserved instead.

OUTLINE OF THE NOMENCLATURAL PROBLEM
The species was originally described (and spelled) by OELÓSARSKI (1881) as Helix (Fruticicola) Lubomirski.The specific name was corrected by spelling with lower case at the beginning of the 20th century (POLIÑSKI 1914, 1917, 1919, WAGNER 1915) which is nowadays in accordance with Art.28 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999).The current generic placement of the species is questionable as it is placed in either the genus Trochulus Chemnitz, 1786 (being itself a replacement name for Trichia Hartmann, 1840) (PROAEKÓW 2009, WELTER-SCHULTES 2012) or Plicuteria Shileyko, 1978(SHILEYKO 2006, PALL-GERGELY et al. 2013).
The arguments that the original spelling "lubomirski" is correct and should be preserved can be found in the following Articles of the Code: -31.1.Species-group names formed from personal names: "31.1.2.A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3)formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man  -33.4.Use of -i for -ii and vice versa, and other alternative spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names: "The use of the genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate […]." -33.5.Cases of doubt: "In any case of doubt whether a different subsequent spelling is an emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling, it is to be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling (and therefore unavailable), and not as an emendation."However, we consider that there are some arguments rendering the alternative spelling "lubomirskii" correct.They can be found in the Articles: -31A (Recommendation).Avoidance of personal names as nouns in apposition: "An author who establishes a new species-group name based on a personal name should preferably form the name in the genitive case and not as a noun in apposition, in order to avoid the appearance that the species-group name is a citation of the authorship of the generic name."-33.3.Incorrect subsequent spellings: "[...] but 33.3.1.when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling."

EXPLANATORY COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
In our opinion it would be important to consider the intention of the name's author.ANTONI OELÓ-SARSKI (1881) honoured his fellow malacologist Prince W£ADYS£AW LUBOMIRSKI creating the name "Helix Lubomirski".The original paper was written in Polish, with diagnosis in Latin.It is not possible to infer today whether OELÓSARSKI (1881) had used the name as a noun in apposition or as in a genitive case.Generally, the use of a noun in apposition is rare in the Polish language; it would seem forced, and potentially even offensive if such a noble name were translated directly from Latin into Polish.The natural form would be the genitive (Lubomirskiego).
The specific name was repeated several times in the original publication; therefore it certainly did not represent an erroneous spelling, e.g.lapsus calami or printer's error.Unfortunately, it is not also used in Polish in the text, which would indicate the intention of the author to use it as a noun in apposition or genitive.ANTONI OELÓSARSKI wrote in total seven scientific papers on molluscs of the Polish Kingdom (POKRYSZKO & RIEDEL 1999, RIEDEL & POKRYSZKO 1999), five of the them (listed in: RIEDEL 1988) were published before 1881.The only one published later (OELÓSARSKI 1883) did not mention Helix Lubomirski.
Therefore we cannot confirm that ANTONI OELÓSARSKI used the name in any of his texts again.KIMAKOWICZ (1890) was the first author to use the specific name spelled with -ii several times as Fruticicola (Trichia) Lubomirskii, citing the original spelling Helix Lubomirski of OELÓSARSKI (1881) as a synonym.Therefore, it is evident that he amended the name intentionally.Anyway, the author of emendation (and followers) could have acted with two considerations in mind: 1) the specific name should not be the noun in apposition, but genitive instead; 2) the specific name, if coined from the person's last name, should take the Latin genitive suffix -i.Thus, the family name proper "Lubomirski" should be expressed as a specific name in Latinized genitive "lubomirskii".
It is worth noting that several other species dedicated to W. LUBOMIRSKI about the same time, namely Pipreola lubomirskii Taczanowski, 1879 (Aves, Passeriformes), Breda lubomirskii (Taczanowski, 1878) (Arachnida), Hyalella lubomirskii (Wrzeoeniowski, 1879) (Crustacea) or Mycetophila lubomirskii Dziedzicki, 1884 (Diptera) were named in that way from the outset.This indicates that even in the times of OELÓSARSKI's original description other Polish authors were using the genitive.The name of the snail could have been seen as wrong very early.
Since the time when modern nomenclatural rules have applied, the later form of the species name spelling (lubomirskii) has been universally accepted as if correct (even if it was not).It has prevailed in the vast majority of scientific literature to date.We suspect that, except for the original publication of OELÓSARSKI (1881), the name spelled lubomirski was not used intentionally before 2012 (WELTER-SCHULTES 2012).PALL-GERGELY et al. (2013) mentioned other papers in which the spelling "lubomirski" was used.We can even extend this list (LOZEK 1971, KORALEWSKA-B AT U R A 1992, BÁBA 2005, DOMOKOS 2007, BARGA-WIÊC£AWSKA 2011a, b)1 .However, we suggest that whenever the name "lubomirski" appears (apart from WELTER-SCHULTES 2012 and PALL-GERGELY et al. 2013), this spelling was used unintentionally.RIEDEL (1988) stressed that JAECKEL (1939) used the incorrect spelling.SHILEYKO (1978a) used the spelling "lubomirski" only once in his paper introducing genus-level name Plicuteria with Plicuteria lubomirski as the only species of the genus (see: SHILEYKO 1978a: 30).In every other place in his paper "lubomirskii" is used (pp. 2, 31, 45, 49, 51, 54), therefore it may be inferred that it was a printer's error or lapsus calami on page 30.This is confirmed by the fact that the author used "lubomirskii" consistently in his other publications (SHILEYKO 1978b, 2006, SYSOEV & SHILEYKO 2009).LOZEK used both spellings in his different papers (1956 vs. 1971).Although GROSSU (1983) used "lubomirski", he stated that he had followed the data of KIMAKOWICZ (1890) and POLIÑSKI (1914) but both latter authors used the spelling "lubomirskii".Both spellings are used in the same paper of BARGA-WIÊC£AWSKA (2011a) and DOMOKOS ( 2007), although lubomirskii is the only spelling in the later paper of DOMOKOS & PELBÁRT (2011) It appears that several authors have been careless over spelling.WELTER-SCHULTES (2012: 563) stated that "original spelling was not lubomirskii, the correct spelling lubomirski was used in some recent Polish sources".We have listed above several recent fundamental Polish malacological publications with the spelling "lubomirskii".We have also found usage of the spelling "lubomirski", but only in very few local Polish papers with doubtful quality of peer-reviewing.On the other hand, even in the book by WELTER-SCHULTES (2012) himself, the spelling "lubomirskii" can be found (see: p. Q64 of the Appendix "The most frequent species in Europe") which illustrates how easily errors may appear.
Based on the above premise and the fact that spelling of the species name has fundamental significance in browsing through electronic resources, we are of the opinion that the amended name, even if discordant with the above mentioned articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be preserved, invoking the opportunity created by the Exception 33.3.1.We suggest that the spelling "lubomirski" has not been used intentionally in any major publication for over 130 years since its introduc-tion in 1881 by OElósarski.In our opinion it is clear that the spelling "lubomirskii" is in "prevailing usage" and that this term has an obvious, self-explanatory meaning as inferred from both the letter and the spirit of the Code (ICZN 1999).Based on this interpretation, the species-group name "lubomirskii" should be preferred as available over the original spelling "lubomirski".