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

Thu Jul 6 09:12:30 CDT 2023

 That idea only makes sense on the assumption that the most recently published name change reflects greater accumulated knowledge on the taxon, ie. more data. Otherwise it is arbitrary and it is nowhere written as either a rule or recommendation. It would mean that you would have to reject a work based on lots of good data in favour of another work published the next day that was based on no data but just subjective opinion! Science?
Stephen
    On Thursday, 6 July 2023, 11:29:56 pm NZST, George Beccaloni <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:  

 The most recently published one!
George
**************************************************************************Dr George Beccaloni FLSDirector, Alfred Russel Wallace Correspondence Project
Wallace Correspondence Project: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceletters.myspecies.infowallace%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dKGMknrhZugvcIIS%2Fpb4lzXCkCe9HQN2x8BUFE8ADCg%3D&reserved=0 Memorial Fund: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallacefund.myspecies.inforesearchgate%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BHufN2UjAHzYoCi8QJVT%2FbNG4%2BOO1JSWm4Shld52YAQ%3D&reserved=0: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FGeorge-Beccaloni-2**************************************************************************&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SvhPqJSiJZmhds3uGL1c2OJgXkxu6fx3xU264%2B%2Fufo8%3D&reserved=0

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 12:28, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

'surely one name needs to be regarded as the current valid name'

Why? If there are two active taxonomists in the world on a group, say, and one of them is a generic lumper and the other a generic splitter, then they will place a species into different genera and it will have two names. Which is correct?
Stephen   On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 10:59:04 pm NZST, George Beccaloni <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Sort of. Yes, you would need databases giving all the synonyms etc, but surely one name needs to be regarded as the current valid name. It would be a retrograde step to suggest otherwise. And getting rid of gender agreement would mean that no additional spellings of the species-group name would have to be added to the list.
George
**************************************************************************Dr George Beccaloni FLSDirector, Alfred Russel Wallace Correspondence Project
Wallace Correspondence Project: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceletters.myspecies.infowallace%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dKGMknrhZugvcIIS%2Fpb4lzXCkCe9HQN2x8BUFE8ADCg%3D&reserved=0 Memorial Fund: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallacefund.myspecies.inforesearchgate%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BHufN2UjAHzYoCi8QJVT%2FbNG4%2BOO1JSWm4Shld52YAQ%3D&reserved=0: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FGeorge-Beccaloni-2**************************************************************************&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SvhPqJSiJZmhds3uGL1c2OJgXkxu6fx3xU264%2B%2Fufo8%3D&reserved=0

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:44, Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

 I will again suggest that what is needed is a move away from the idea of a single correct name for a taxon. Bombus ruderatus is the same name (from the point of view of homonymy) but just a different spelling from B. ruderatum and B. ruderata. If we are to track information on the species, we need to search for all three spelling variants, in case someone has used them. In the same way, we need to search for all synonyms and alternative combinations for the same species. You can call one of the gender variants the "correct" one, but what does that actually achieve? People will still use the other variants, as lepidopterists have been doing all along, without problems. The easiest solution is just to consider all gender variants to be synonyms and you track a taxon by the set of all its synonyms.
Stephen
    On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 10:13:02 pm NZST, David Redei via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  

 No, sorry, I absolutely do not like Adam's suggestion. Then genera will
contain some names with masculine, some with feminine, and some with neuter
ending, and sorry, I do not want to remember that "OK, Bombus lapidarius,
Bombus ruderatus, Bombus alpinus, Bombus confusus, Bombus auricomus and
Bombus balteatus are all masculine, but Bombus germanica and Bombus pulchra
are feminine and Bombus nigrum is neuter, because they were recently
transferred from other genera and they kept their former ending. (Imaginary
names.) Throwing away rules and making people remember each and every name
one by one is considerably more difficult than following rules. People can
cite examples of problematic adjectives, but the fact is that the
overwhelming majority of the adjectives are easy to handle.

In my opinion, "prevailing usage" is the most swampy and controversial term
in the current Code. Glossary defines it as "*that usage of the name which
is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors
concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work
was published.*" What is "substantial majority"? If there are 100 authors,
51 of them uses one usage, 49 the other, it is definitely not a
"substantial majority". How about 55 : 45? 60 : 40? 70 : 30? Where is the
limit? What if there are only 10 people using the name, and the ratio is 9
: 1, is it a substantial majority? Can we call 9 people a "majority"? How
about a scenario when only 6 people used the name in the past 100 years and
their ratio is 4 : 2, is it substantial majority?  What if the ratio is
30:70, but most of the 70 authors publish in exotic journals in exotic
languages therefore most of the scientific committee do not read them,
while the 30 authors publish in easily available periodicals in universally
understood languages therefore all members of the scientific community read
them, would we call the 70 as "prevailing usage" in this case?

This term is a nightmare, lacking any clear definition, you need to rely on
your subjective feelings. Moreover, using the "prevailing usage" is highly
difficult in practice, since you need to make a major literature search to
establish the prevailing usage.

In my opinion, gender agreement might be surely a trouble for some people
who do not want to waste time for learning something supposedly "useless"
(?), but abandoning it would be a very significant step backwards, highly
destabilizing nomenclature. Please note that *the "prevailing usage" is
precisely the gender agreement itself: changing the ending of the specific
epithets is a practice that has been in prevailing usage in the past 250
years*.* Our currently existing "prevailing usage" of names is based on
gender agreement*, which was overwhelmingly correctly (and yes, sometimes
incorrectly) applied in all names (minus Lepidoptera).  If you really seek
stability, you cannot abandon it.

David Redei

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 13:36, George Beccaloni via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587837830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UCYHn7feYFL73wpWMjiuhmpErJv4lpWFJQVqRVQ9jpQ%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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Fb3SAZdHXE4ktEKY94U3XApwykrQ2ZvWUHC%2FZ%2FscThc%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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=32wtSi64%2FcLVV8okNe%2BTSSKiaJAPpsC4UgLqsSERmrI%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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1ygwf90SXVWoOLCRnW409boLbPPI2ZKxFz976MpUFbE%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> > about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1ygwf90SXVWoOLCRnW409boLbPPI2ZKxFz976MpUFbE%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
_______________________________________________
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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1ygwf90SXVWoOLCRnW409boLbPPI2ZKxFz976MpUFbE%3D&reserved=0

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

_______________________________________________
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%7Cb7a55e6c1b8c45f6900808db7e2b0af4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242495587994057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1ygwf90SXVWoOLCRnW409boLbPPI2ZKxFz976MpUFbE%3D&reserved=0

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