replaced with |
@nateupham intentionally and chose ruepelli over ruepellii, though provides no explanation as to why he made this amendment (https://mammaldiversity.org/species-account.php?genus=vulpes&species=rueppelli). However, I have seen both V. ruepelli and V. ruepellii used in literature. While Cuvier may have adopted V. ruepellii (with two 'i's) in his initial description, I have seen names amended for other animal species to "match" the intended display (e.g. Vulpes ruepellii is named in honor of Eduard Rüppell. Adopting an epithet with two 'i' implies the name is Eduard Rüppelli).
May I have your opinion on this Framework note, @jakob? (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/105813)
I think we were following this Mammalian Species account: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316143906_Vulpes_rueppelli
But because I see the point you all are making, and changed it back to -ii and added a note of correction to the ASM species page: https://mammaldiversity.org/species-account.php?genus=vulpes&species=rueppellii
Hope this clarifies things. Likely there are other errors along these lines that we can look for.
One question: why is it Ruppelii with only one 'l' in the original description? (https://archive.org/details/thierreicheinge00cuvia/page/508)
Original and correct spelling with 2 i. I suggest to double-check these kind of changes before adopting the spelling of the ASM database, which is pretty poor in this respect.
www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14000885
https://archive.org/details/thierreicheinge00cuvia/page/508