questions [about "prevailing usage"]

[Spies, Martin]

Dear Peter, dear all,

> Just to be clear about *which* authors this ICZN glossary
> definition refers to, it is referring to authors of taxonomic
> treatises, and not authors of ecology papers, newspaper
> articles, etc., which happen to use/mention the name of a beast
> being reported on in some non-taxonomic context. Right?

the glossary of the ICZN attempts to provide general definitions
for terms used elsewhere in that work. In that sense, the
'definition' I quoted applies to any mention of the term
"prevailing usage" in any context within ICZN 4 (1999).
The point here is that it is not clear, or - looked at another way -
it is open to interpretation by anybody exactly what publications
should be counted in. As I had mentioned in an earlier message,
the Code itself does count OUT certain publications in the
context of Article 23.9., but I don't think it is 'legal' to simply
extrapolate that exclusion to other Articles.

It is this uncertainty (= non-reproducibility by others)
that makes "prevailing usage" practically unworkable
at least with the present 'definition'.

--
Martin Spies
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: spies.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 157 bytes
Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Spies, Martin
Url : http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/attachments/20010827/af2fd50e/attachment.vcf