Taxacom: A compromise solution (was Re: Single official lists of taxa (sensu Doug Yanega many proposals to this list))

[Adam Cotton]

There is a relatively simple solution to the gender agreement issue that 
I would like to propose.

I do not think that lepidopterists really want to impose original 
spellings for all zoological names in other taxa. We have already been 
using original spellings for most species names for a long time with 
exceptions for incorrect subsequent spellings that are in prevailing 
usage (e.g. Papilio pitmanii -the original spelling - was changed to 
pitmani over 100 years ago, and that spelling is in prevailing usage so 
is regarded as the 'correct' spelling under article 33.3.1).

I propose that when a species is transferred to another genus gender 
agreement should no longer be applied, and instead use the current 
spelling of the species name regardless of the gender of the new genus. 
That way species names would be fixed permanently, so that e.g. the 
species known as Bombus lapidarius, Camponotus herculeanus, and Polistes 
gallicus would continue to be called lapidarius, herculeanus, and 
gallicus even if they were moved to different genera.

This suggested 'compromise' could easily be incorporated in the 5th 
edition of the Code by applying the prevailing usage concept, which is 
already widely used in the current Code, with relevant new articles to 
govern these changes. This would actually simplify the Code a lot, as 
many more articles pertaining to gender agreement would be removed than 
the new ones added to implement the system.

Previously described species names would continue to use the spelling in 
current prevailing use, even if it is not the spelling in the original 
description, and newly described species group names would never 
subsequently change their spellings.

There will be some cases where more than one spelling is currently used 
in the literature, in which case priority could be given to the original 
spelling if prevailing usage is unclear.

Some taxonomists will not like my suggested solution, but it would solve 
the whole problem without names having to change from their current 
spellings. I vote for the principle of nomenclatural stability which the 
current Code aspires to. There is nothing more stable than species names 
which never change when they are moved to a different genus. I suspect 
that implementing this suggestion would also make life a lot easier for 
the database people too.

Adam.


On 06/07/2023 05:17, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
> On 7/5/23 1:54 PM, John Noyes wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And you work, by and large, with species names that rarely enter the 
> non-taxonomic literature. In contrast, using a few other hymenopteran 
> genera as examples, consider that many of the most common bumblebee 
> species in the world, and many of the most common ants, and many of 
> the most common paper wasps, would all suddenly have to change 
> spellings because they have been in masculine genera for over 100 
> years, but their original Linnaean or Fabrician genera were feminine 
> (e.g., Apis, Formica, and Vespa). The many people - including 
> laypeople - who are familiar with common European species like Bombus 
> lapidarius, Camponotus herculeanus, and Polistes gallicus wouldn't be 
> happy *at all*.