Fredrik.Ljungberg@saab.se wrote: > > 1: gramma from gramme (line), latinized Greek word, feminine > 2: gramma from gramma (character), Greek word not latinized, neuter. > > So it comes down to the rules of nomenclature and how to interpret > what Regan meant. > Dear Fredrik, I've been aware of the question regarding Gender of Apistogramma when I accessed NRM home-page (Cichlid pages, produced by Dr. Sven O. Kullander). I also read somewhere the references to the articles you mention (Romer; Olsen) at some place in Internet about one month (?) ago, but cannot remember where. As I'm presently submiting an article to 'The Apisto-Gram', the publication of ASG (Apistogramma Study Group), I contacted Kullander via e-mail. What he answered to me (on September 13) is exactly what you have put on above lines, that is the point is wether Regan meant gramme (line) or gramma (character). If he meant line, then the word was Latinized into gramma (feminine), making 'Apistogramma' a feminine genus (so would apply trifasciata, maciliensis, juruensis, pulchra, and so on). If he meant character, then 'Apistogramma' is a neuter genus (so would apply trifasciatum, maciliense, juruense, pulchrum, and so on). According to Kullander it is stated by Article 30(a) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (case of interpretating gramma as character, so NEUTER gender). Article 30a(iii), on the other hand, says that 'a genus-group name that is or ends in a LATINIZED Greek word takes the gender normally appropriate to the Latin termination.' This article applies to the understanding 'gramma' as LATINIZATION of the Greek word 'gramme' (= line). Also according Kullander, "Šgeneral understanding now may be that it is neuterŠ', but he says that the situation may very well to change in future. FREDRIK: IF YOU CAN FAX ME COPY OF BOTH ARTICLES YOU MENTIONED (ROEMER + OLSEN), I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU. MY FAX NB IS + 55-21-259-8737. Cheers, Marco.