Taxacom: Single official lists of taxa (sensu Doug Yanega many proposals to this list)

Wed Jul 5 15:54:52 CDT 2023

Hi Doug,

Fair enough, but you cannot get away from the argument that gender agreement is just simply 100% unnecessary. Forget about it being a waste of time. If we all worked on the premise that all genera have no gender then it would make life a whole lot easier. Like many people I definitely prefer the original spelling. That way it would be completely objective and 100% stable. I have done my dose of Latin and ancient Greek and modern Greek (forgotten most it now, but I do know how to use a dictionary) published more new generic and species names than I care to remember and designed and populated one of the best taxonomic databases in the world. Yes, going back to check the original spellings of all species names would take some time. If I had to check all the original spellings of all the species names ever used in Chalcidoidea (about 35,000) it would probably take 10 working weeks and add in a further 1.5 working weeks for all the generic names. I am in a good place because I have already done that, but if I had to do it again I would be starting off with probably the best organised taxonomic database in the world because every name is directly linked to a PDF of the original article where it was made available. However, if we had to determine the gender of every single genus it would probably take at least 3 weeks even using the system that you might be talking about because there is a good proportion of names that would have to be argued over (e.g. Trichogramma, one of the best-known genera in parasitic wasps which is currently used as neuter whereas it is actually of female gender; Tetramesa is another that springs to mind). Also, If we had to check the status (adjective, noun in apposition, etc.) of every species name it would take a good six months, even using the UCD. I think 6 months is minimum because very many names appear to be adjectival, but might just be nouns in apposition, e.g. flavus (a Roman general).

Just as an extra note to those that find latin names useful because it helps them to remember what an organism looks like. I have exactly the opposite experience. Consider a genus where the first known species described is all yellow and is described as flavus. After a 100 years or so there are 300 species known in that genus that are also yellow. Also, a species described as bangaloriensis but the actual origin of that species is probably somewhere in Latin America. And so on  . . . .

Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. However, I expect that we shall still be using gender agreement in 100 years time because it is traditional and tradition is always difficult to break away from. I find that a very strange thought because taxonomy has really progressed in leaps and bounds over the last few years yet one of the tools of taxonomy has remained firmly stuck in the 18th century.  I think that gender agreement is totally unnecessary and without it we could probably hugely simplify the Code and get rid of a great chunk of it and we would not even have to look up any official list every time we described a new species or put a species name in a new combination, etc.

By the way, my first language also has gender agreement, but even that I have forgotten over the past 60 years or so.

Just my ha'penneth worth.

John

Dr John S. Noyes
Scientific Associate
Insects Division
Natural History Museum
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD
UK

Everything you wanted to know about Chalcidoidea (Universal Chalcidoidea Database):
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhm.ac.uk%2Four-science%2Fdata%2Fchalcidoids%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CEPdHsihHreGVKLmRpJN8pevpFdYG283Po0WaEsgXhM%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhm.ac.uk%2Four-science%2Fdata%2Fchalcidoids%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TtahCY4YHf5p3vAH25Nj%2BQt2Zxn79AYN1IS94Y4kCIw%3D&reserved=0>

Taxonomic Monographs on Neotropical Hymenoptera
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhm.ac.uk%2Four-science%2Four-work%2Fbiodiversity%2Ftaxonomic-monographs-on-neotropical-hymenoptera.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IWOUiK5pfK2Ow2A4IdNSpZhsLmge%2BuEs9Tv2xPQn0eY%3D&reserved=0

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of Douglas Yanega via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Sent: 05 July 2023 19:28
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Single official lists of taxa (sensu Doug Yanega many proposals to this list)

On 7/4/23 2:04 PM, George Beccaloni via Taxacom wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> My comment about it being a massive waste of effort was about the gender
> agreement part of the list. Someone, Doug it seems, needs to spend years
> determining the genders of all the genus-group names - which could IMHO
> have been better spent on doing other things.

Briefly: it only takes years if you are doing it in your spare time,
rather than as a primary focus. As an exercise, I determined the genders
of well over 5000 genera a few days ago, *in less than an hour*. How?
Because the Code mandates, in Articles 30.1.1, 30.1.2, and 30.1.3, that
names, if they are or end in a Latin or latinized Greek word, MUST match
the gender given in Latin and Greek dictionaries - overriding any and
all statements by the original author, or subsequent usage, and based
ONLY upon the treatment of those words/suffixes in dictionaries. Article
30.1.4.3 is similar: a genus ending in "-ops" is always masculine.

This makes it possible to assign genders to genus names for the
overwhelming majority of all published names with access to (1) a
digital list of genus names, and (2) a comprehensive dictionary. *The
original literature does not need to be consulted for most published names*.

For example, names ending in "-ops" comprise approximately 0.5% of all
genus names. If the list of all genus names in zoology is 400,000, then
right there that's 2000 names checked off the list instantly. Names
ending in "-opsis" are all feminine, and comprise another 0.7%, while
"-cerus" is masculine and another 0.5%, and so forth, and so forth (just
think of all the genera ending in "-saurus" and "-odon"). By the time
you're done checking off the names for which gender assignment is
mandatory and unambiguous, you've almost finished the entire job. This
part of the task does *not* take years.

The effort is asymptotic: it's the tail of the distribution, the names
that *must* have the original description consulted (e.g., Articles
30.1.4, 30.1.4.4, and 30.2), that take time. That's where taxonomists
have to expend scholarly effort.

> Global catalogues of names
> are (of course) of vital importance and I am pleased to say that I have
> been doing my bit! Not only did I create the Cockroach Species File
> (synonymic catalogue of all 'true'' cockroaches - unfinished of course)

And that is an admirable and important scholarly effort, and *very*
valuable. You can expect that everyone who works on Species Files of
this sort will be acknowledged and eventually asked to contribute to any
efforts at a master list of names. As Jose correctly noted, the best way
forward is to get as much "bottom up" effort coordinated as possible,
and then fill in gaps. The point is not that there is not work to be
done, but that *if people have already done the work*, it only goes to
waste if someone else repeats the exact same effort, and we want to
avoid that. As much as we appear to disagree, I do truly hope that when
the time comes, that you will be willing to share what you have
accomplished with those of us trying to compile master lists. For that
matter, if you are *presently* capable of providing a list of all the
genus-rank names in Blattodea and their genders, we would be *very*
grateful to receive that information and your permission to incorporate
it, with acknowledgment, into the master list. That same request goes to
any and all members of this mailing list in a similar position - the
effort to compile the master list is in fact already under way.

Sincerely,

--
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XEzK9MpFETrNl2VYRC0Xs34GBjnJ72Ne0Ugk6xYAMOU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XEzK9MpFETrNl2VYRC0Xs34GBjnJ72Ne0Ugk6xYAMOU%3D&reserved=0>
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LcVie6Bz%2BoeklUveaUyDh8tQ70HdUF%2F%2BRBnPD%2FEzkwA%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom>
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SDmDAUFxzFniUYsvvEAvvEklxV5nMGCvHkRxt%2F7R2r8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce0e205d66dd44d2fdb2b08db7d9a17c9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638241873034767346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SDmDAUFxzFniUYsvvEAvvEklxV5nMGCvHkRxt%2F7R2r8%3D&reserved=0>

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.