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

Thu Jul 6 03:50:29 CDT 2023

Hi Doug,

If the ICZN adopted Adam Cotton's excellent suggestion, no species-group
names would need to change again. Users of names would I'm sure be very
pleased indeed and the scenario you envisaged would not occur. It might
also be a great media opportunity for the ICZN: "We are changing the system
to meet the needs of the modern world and help the many users of scientific
names..."

Incidentally, all the genus-group names in the Cockroach Species File
should be available in the Catalogue of Life. Ignore other genus-group
names for the non-termite cockroaches which I believe they scraped together
from other sources and which are invariably misspellings etc.
Alternatively, I'm sure the Species File team could provide you with a list
of all genus-group names in the databases they look after - including the
Orthoptera. They may welcome in return, a database giving the genders of
the names.

Best wishes,

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%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9JFtjkgGbuJD2noA%2FsfcQZu1sysjcM3uWgbDdjgCzeM%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%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yaJBGEN0x4%2FdFW%2FdXI1OQZqdEAblZztmyXBMKCV%2F02I%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%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2By%2BoPggtGAaChl2HQLHwOaLfP9eJvYtk2NKK6lbISfQ%3D&reserved=0
****************************************************************************

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 23:18, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> 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*.
>
>
> The best estimate is that around 1/6th of the most well-known animal
> species in the world would have to change their spellings if we revert
> to original spellings (excluding butterflies). That would be the
> absolute biggest public relations nightmare we could ever ask for. If
> you think the furor over "offensive names" is bad, just imagine how much
> worse the public outcry would be if we told everyone that 1/6th of the
> animal species they know suddenly have different scientific names.
>
>
> Maybe, if you worked on a group in the public awareness, you might feel
> a little differently about the matter.
>
>
> > That way it would be completely objective and 100% stable.
>
> Changing 1/6th of all well-known names is *not* promoting stability.
>
> > 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).
> >
> You seem to have missed the point I was making, that we don't want
> anyone to "argue over" anything, ever again. Complying with gender
> agreement can be trivially easy, and not involve any linguistic research
> at all, *and no arguing*.
>
>
> Case in point, under Article 30.1.2 of the Code, all names ending in
> "-gramma" are neuter, because "γράμμα" (gramma) is a Greek neuter noun
> transliterated directly into the Latin alphabet, and usage by the
> coining author is explicitly not taken into consideration.
>
>
> "30.1.2. a genus-group name that is or ends in a Greek word
> transliterated into Latin without other changes takes the gender given
> for that word in standard Greek dictionaries"
>
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2F%25CE%25B3%25CF%2581%25CE%25AC%25CE%25BC%25CE%25BC%25CE%25B1&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ih8HNrxOrgXFY0xrCBtzXjmpOT%2FCz5%2BhgHrR1yfOqf4%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> You appear instead to be looking at "γραμμή" (gramme), which is indeed
> feminine, but does not transliterate as "gramma".
>
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2F%25CE%25B3%25CF%2581%25CE%25B1%25CE%25BC%25CE%25BC%25CE%25AE&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l81cT%2BNW5DGCBM3FdZHzhEN%2FbQBb4gOHoe4ASwOj6wg%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> In fact, there is a natively Latin noun "gramma" already, and it is also
> neuter.
>
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2Fgramma%23Latin&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOF7fpnmBHIdr5y8Kr0C2TUgTcvg57jjFYOuMZMqs3k%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> Accordingly, we appear to have an argument on our hands. However,
> *arguing* is a waste of your time and my time. It would save everyone a
> lot of annoyance if you were able to simply consult an official list of
> genus names and suffixes, where it says "-gramma" is always neuter and
> "-gramme" is always feminine. *Then there is no more argument*. Same for
> declaring that names like "flavus" are always adjectival, even if
> someone, somewhere, used them as a noun. If we try hard enough, can we
> dig up obscure references that use nouns as adjectives, or adjectives as
> nouns? Maybe we can, but linguistic research is *not our job*.
>
>
> No taxonomist should *ever* have to do linguistic research again; we CAN
> eliminate that, by having lists, and still keep gender agreement
> completely intact as a practice. All of the alternatives to official
> lists are much worse, including the status quo.
>
>
> 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%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Dop9rvklaUrkJo7CAK8le9GX5nwHYc3wgYK7cjzjzqM%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://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%7Cadb9062c3a45448c38f408db7dfe1cf9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242302623269049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FoJxZhPrVZgNHAWBZs0DUmhtUWAcuQUoi6RXZKl5J1E%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>