Principle of "Usage" in Zoological Nomenclature

[christian thompson]

Sorry, Ron

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


>>> Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG> 08/20 6:05 PM >>>
Ron wrote:

SORRY, Thompson, neither you nor any one else is free to "read into" the
Code that which is not stated. The Code has a long history of legally
based, detailed, language. If the writers of edition 4 had a "Principle of
Usage" that was to now rule over _all_ it would have been explicitly
stated
not left up to psychic insights into its authors "intents".


Sorry, Ron.

Ask yourself the simple question.  How do I write a computer algorithm or
logical table to implement what is written in the code.  If you do, you will
see despite all the nice "legal" language, in practical reality the FIRST
step to be take in deciding how to use those "principles," is to determine
usage, to see, for example, whether the criteria of article 23.9.1 are met
and, hence, the whether the exception (reversal of priority) applies.

Do the simple exercise:  Consider two names (Art. 23.9):

Musca alba Smith 1820 and Musca albisterna Jones 1840.

Which name is valid under the Code?  Unless you determine the relative
"usage" of both epithets, one does not know whether the Principle of
Priority applies or does not.

Same with the question of spellings (Art. 33.3.1):

Trypansoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 or bruceii, an incorrect
subsequent spelling

Which is the correct spelling? Again, usage must be determined first to see
whether the rules of availability apply or not?

Consider a junior secondary homonym (Art. 59.3):

Is Syrphus cingulatus Fabricius 1775 valid or invalid? That depends on
whether its replacement name, Musca pacifica Gmelin 1790,  is "in use" or
not!

So, scattered throughout the new edition there are these exception which
require one to FIRST determine relative "usage" to determine whether the
rules can be applied.

So, yes, while exceptions are not the rule / principle, etc., they do
determine whether one applies the rule / principle or not. Thus, in that
way, they are the "first" principle!

As for the "writers of edition 4," I did argue from an operational point of
view we should have change the "principle of priority" to that of "usage,"
however, the conservatives overruled me. While we did hid our intent, it
takes no "psychic insights" to tell you that the "writers of edition 4"
intended to make the conservation of long-accepted names in their accustomed
meaning the first priority in achieving stability and universality in
zoological nomenclature.