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

[George Beccaloni]

Well, what about the suggestion I made to Adam's idea "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." So, no more gender agreement, and species-group names would
be fixed and thus be better identifiers of species. Many people who want to
keep gender agreement are only doing so because it is a tradition. They
don't seem to care about the users of the names. Traditions can be bad e.g.
headhunting is not a particularly desirable one!

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%7C668fe2f3378442fbc41f08db7e137a93%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242394358075503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AO6h8UzXVYe4xNnOLXTkEqjXj7mj5cUIy20BRD%2FgHzI%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%7C668fe2f3378442fbc41f08db7e137a93%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242394358075503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UQGY3Ji7o%2BsvUl%2FkYhkYqAbhwd3yHWMuadaGGf8F1rw%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%7C668fe2f3378442fbc41f08db7e137a93%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242394358075503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=StfIRXnpUpND7MNAcU2c0NhJkZYEm1ohdcOC%2FTnQeto%3D&reserved=0
****************************************************************************


On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 12:08, David Redei via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> " You seem to have missed the whole point, you would no longer need to
> worry whether a genus and a species name is masculine, feminine or
> neuter EVER again, they would become names that never change."
>
> Adam, with all my respect, I think it is you who is missing the whole
> point.
>
> You can like or dislike, but Latin adjectives do have various endings. You
> cannot say "you would no longer need to worry whether a genus and species
> name is masculine, feminine, or neuter EVER again", because still tens of
> thousands of species names with changeable endings (like germanicus,
> germanica and germanicum)  will continue to exist in the literature, and
> you will still need to determine whether the usage of a particular name is
> CORRECT or INCORRECT.
>
> If I currently see "Bombus germanica" in a paper by Jones (2023), I will
> know this is wrong. At most I need to check the original description to see
> whether it is indeed a Latin adjective, but in many cases even this will be
> unnecessary. In my next publication I can use the name "Bombus germanicus",
> and I will make a remark that "the usage of Smith (2023) as Bombus
> germanica is wrong". *The correctness or incorrectness of a given usage can
> currently be established based on a simple rule.*
>
> After your proposed new practice will be in effect, if I see "Bombus
> germanica" in a paper by Jones (2023), I will indeed not need to care
> whether Bombus is masculine, feminine or neuter, but I still will *need *to
> determine whether this usage is correct or not! And the ONLY way for this
> will be to make a major literature search, browse through dozens if not
> hundreds articles and check how the various authors used the epithet over
> the past centuries. *The correctness or incorrectness of a usage will only
> be possible to be established based on a literature search.*
>
> I hardly think that it would be an improvement. For me it is a significant
> step backwards.
>
> David Redei
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C668fe2f3378442fbc41f08db7e137a93%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242394358075503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F4NHjET7ORnLkNH2jsIqh%2FEPhf089srvtzwBZx8%2FY5M%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>