"Banasa packardi" or "Banasa packardii" ?

here's my orig. message and his response (i just copy it, haven't had time to read yet):
==========
Don--
pls see question at http://bugguide.net/node/view/380791.
to my surprise, it's '-ii' on asa.htm" class="bb_url">Rider's site; i was under the impression that ICZN got rid of the 'ii' patronyms at some point...
=v=
==========
Vassili,
That was also my impression, although I can see where the rules are less than explicit on the question (perhaps deliberately so). As I am sure you are aware, the double ii ending is correct in some instances, a species named for Pliny or Geoffroy would be respectively plinii and geoffroii. But one can correctly use either the Latin or the Latinized form, thus for Fabricius one could use either fabricii or fabriciusi but fabriciusii would be incorrect. In the case of the bug named for Packard, the original spelling proposed by Stål was Banasa Packardii which is an etymologically incorrect original spelling. The third edition of the Code, rule 32d simply states that an incorrect original spelling must be corrected. It was under that rule that the incorrect double-ii's were emended. But now in the fourth edition (the one I don't like) it says that (rule 32.2) "The original spelling of a name is the correct original spelling unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in article 32.5.”
Article 32.5 does not include bad etymology and thus reverses rule 32d of the third edition. It seems that under rule 32.5 the only "incorrect" original spellings are those with hyphens, punctuation, and capital letters. Although a separate rules states that endings that are not of the proper gender must be corrected.
Another provision that would appear to be to the point is rule 33.4. This rule covers subsequent spellings. It says that changing the spelling from ii to i or vice versa is incorrect if the original form is correct. Under the new rule 32, the double-ii's are deemed correct even though they are etymologically incorrect.
And then not to get too technical but there are two exceptions to the above. First is if one can demonstrate that the original spelling was a printer's error. Second, is if in the subsequent correction you state (incorrectly) that the original spelling was ii even though it was really i, the incorrect emendation becomes the prevailing usage and must be continued - go figure!
The law is an ass!

Don

The normal practice in zoology is to use one i. I don't remember what the ICZN says on the matter, and my link to the online version doesn't work anymore. Looking at the original description shows that Stål used packardii with two is.