"prevailing usage" etc.

[christian thompson]

SORRY, Martin, those writing the new Code strongly disagreed
with your ideal world.  In respect to:

"following the zoological Code, we must make a clear distinction
between those cases in which, according to each relevant Article,
"prevailing usage" is to be considered, and those - such as most
cases of incorrect or variant spellings - for which there are
provisions without regard to "prevailing usage". (In my opinion
we are very fortunate that the latter concept has not (yet) been
declared the guiding principle of nomenclature."
                      &&&
"For example, if there is clear evidence
that the current (!) "prevailing usage" of a name is based on
obvious past mistakes - be they methodical in nature or the
result of personal motives of earlier authors (yes, that happened;
and no, it is not as rare as we would like) - then taxonomy and
nomenclature as scientific disciplines should follow the proven
facts and not a past majority of voices that may have been
well-meaning but definitely was ill-informed."

Consider the new clause, Art. 33.3.1 and its example.

While the original authors clearly and properly formed the honorific
epithet "brucii," but because the majority of the subsequent workers did not
understand Latin and used "brucei" then one must follow the "past majority
of voices," etc. So, "prevailing usage" does appy to "incorrect or variant
spelling."  [Also, note Art. 32.5.1 which states that "incorrect
transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting
vowel, are NOT to be considered inadvertent error" and, thus, can not be
subsequently corrected!]

Also, consider Art. 23.9 Reversal of precedence

While the new Code does not declare the "Principle of Usage," the intent of
the new Code is that there is such a "guiding" principle and that it must be
considered before the principle of priority.  That is, one must first
determined the nature of the usage of competing names, before one can invoke
the principle of priority. Only where there isn't "prevailing usage" [as
defined in 23.9.1] can the principle of priority be invoked!

And FINALLY, one must also be careful about categorizing work by its title.
 Yes, many works called "catalogs" are merely compilation from the
literature. But many of the modern "catalogs" now being published are
serious monographic work based on the re-examination of types, revision of
species concepts, etc.  And both are useful. One begins with compilation,
then one can go forward with the revision of species concepts based on type
examination, etc. The result I believe we all agree should be a sound piece
of science which thereafter can properly set "prevailing usage" for others
to follow.  For most workers, that is ecologists, conservationists, doctors,
etc., merely what to know what is the right (correct, valid, etc.) name to
use.

And obviously, the catalogs for these users are those easily and globally
accessible, such as those now being developed on the Internet (WWW).


F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov [NB: no terminal "n"]
visit our Diptera site at www.diptera.org


>>> Spies Martin <spies at ZI.BIOLOGIE.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE> 08/20 3:07 PM >>>
Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lorenz,
dear TAXACOMembers,

following the zoological Code, we must make a clear distinction
between those cases in which, according to each relevant Article,
"prevailing usage" is to be considered, and those - such as most
cases of incorrect or variant spellings - for which there are
provisions without regard to "prevailing usage". (In my opinion
we are very fortunate that the latter concept has not (yet) been
declared the guiding principle of nomenclature. I would be glad
to supply anybody interested with arguments for this opinion,
e.g. see further below, but that is not the topic of Dr. Lorenz'
inquiry.)

There is nothing in the Code's fourth edition that justifies the
raising of catalogs, checklists, etc. to a kind of super-publications
with higher authority than others. On the contrary, there actually
is evidence for the opposite: for example, see Article 23.9.
in which the occurrence of a name in a "nomenclator or index
or list of names" (23.9.6) is declared irrelevant for determinations
of solutions in cases of homonymy.
May be, yet another definition is needed here, distinguishing
between "real catalogs" and "mere nomenclators"? I don't think
so. Even the best-made catalogs can be little better than the
primary publications they are compiling data from. Authors
of midsized to large catalogs usually do not have or take the time
to verify a high proportion of the individual data processed.
And the handling of large quantities of data always results in
additional errors that were not yet in the primary literature.
I know, because I've written such a catalog myself, and I don't
think a species should be considered out of use because, for
another example from my own work, a simple lapsus caused it
to be omitted from the only catalog available on the fauna
the taxon is a part of.

Instead, the real issue we need to pay attention to is whether
or not names and publications (including catalogs) are the result
of work that can be called scientific. For this I'd propose two
criteria probably still agreed on by everybody as essentials of
the scientific method:
1) Whether an author tells us the necessary definitions under which
results were obtained, and whether we find that within these
definitions other people can and will reproduce the same result
as the first author.
2) Whether the definitions under which different results were
obtained together form a coherent system, and not an illogical,
more or less random conglomerate.
Experience indicates - and I'm afraid most taxonomist colleagues
will have to agree - that we are still quite far away from a
taxonomy and nomenclature where the above two (rather
minimal) requirements are thoroughly and unequivocally met.

Until then, I would hope that less colleagues would interpret
"stability" of nomenclature so rigidly that they even begin to
sell out the tried and tested type concept for things like
"prevailing usage" which is not and can never be as clearly
defined, and therefore causes every serious taxonomist
enormous and unnecessary amounts of extra work.

Of course, in- and outside of the Code we should have provisions
against meaningless or frivolous alterations of names. But on the
other hand we must allow those changes representing advancements
in scientific knowledge. For example, if there is clear evidence
that the current (!) "prevailing usage" of a name is based on
obvious past mistakes - be they methodical in nature or the
result of personal motives of earlier authors (yes, that happened;
and no, it is not as rare as we would like) - then taxonomy and
nomenclature as scientific disciplines should follow the proven
facts and not a past majority of voices that may have been
well-meaning but definitely was ill-informed.

After all: every other scientific discipline lives with (if not for!)
the changes resulting from progress in its knowledge.
Why not taxonomy, and nomenclature within it?

Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,

--
Martin Spies
Schraemelstr. 151
D-81247 Muenchen
Germany

Tel. (ZSM): +49 89 8107-153
Fax (ZSM): +49 89 8107-300

E-mail: spies at zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de