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

[George Beccaloni]

Hi Adam,

I think your compromise solution is a really excellent suggestion - one
which should satisfy users of scientific names, promote stability and make
names 'true' unique identifiers - so important in this IT age. One
suggestion though: rather than relying on 'prevailing usage' to 'fix' the
name, the new Code could set a date, and state that the name to be used
after that date is the one used in the last valid nomenclatural act
published before that date. That would be unambiguous.

I think much of the discussion on the issue of gender agreement misses what
I regard to be the main point: that in the modern age it is highly
desirable to have unique identifiers for species. Allowing the names to
change spelling because of gender agreement may have been fine in the
pre-computer era, but is of detriment now. How can anyone say a species
name is a unique identifier when the spelling of the species-group name can
change if it moves to another genus? This is madness, but is perhaps an
issue more keenly felt by those of us who deal with huge catalogues of
names, rather than those who do not.

George
****************************************************************************
*Dr George Beccaloni FLS*
*Director, Alfred Russel Wallace Correspondence Project*

Wallace Correspondence Project: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceletters.myspecies.info%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C195df24694634c08738c08db7de2f6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242185999497864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e3tjAMkCwdbe0I1MgdHfXqJG3VTqjPLJKCHUAYoGSU0%3D&reserved=0
Wallace Memorial Fund: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallacefund.myspecies.info%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C195df24694634c08738c08db7de2f6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242185999497864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YZPSiIhT6I7blYjWU9ydcGbzwxJVVEaYHZF5Zl840ws%3D&reserved=0
ResearchGate: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FGeorge-Beccaloni-2&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C195df24694634c08738c08db7de2f6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242185999497864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0jKKflxbdUaSrByQJcPN7F4q2XAV2ru49f775CvLbOM%3D&reserved=0
****************************************************************************


On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 02:41, Adam Cotton via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> 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*.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> 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%7C195df24694634c08738c08db7de2f6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242185999497864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g2C3yuGW%2FI2ItFyxMQF3zYit1Vw4q%2F7T38VlhLJkB4o%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>