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

[Douglas Yanega]

Man, this discussion does really seem to have hit quite a nerve.

I don't have a lot of time today, but please allow me to make a few 
observations:

Several times in the past - in fact, almost every time I have raised 
this topic - I have in fact addressed proposals to "fix" existing 
epithets, both based on "prevailing usage" (as Adam Cotton recently 
suggested) or an arbitrary date (as George Beccaloni recently 
suggested), or original spellings (suggested by several). These 
suggestions are not new, either to me, or to other members of the 
Commission.

Others here have already pointed out numerous conceptual and practical 
issues with the various ways of "fixing" names, and I have also raised 
these criticisms in the past.

Nearly all of the criticisms I've raised before have been presented in 
the recent discussion (e.g., by David Redei), with the exception of one, 
which a few people have alluded to, but not spelled out in full. I think 
it does bear repeating, and analyzing point-by-point.

That is, ALL of the three models that seek to fix the spelling - either 
original spelling, prevailing usage, or arbitrary date cutoff - cannot 
be implemented in a manner that makes the *decisions on each individual 
species name **accessible**to people* unless there is an authoritative 
list provided.

(1) For original spelling, that list is the complete list of original 
spellings of all 6 million available species names; no one can know for 
certain whether a published combination is using the original spelling 
unless they consult that list. This list is moderately difficult to 
compile, as it requires access to each and every piece of original 
literature. However, much of this work has been done, for many groups of 
organisms, under different BioCodes.

(2) For prevailing usage, that list is a complete list of all species 
names, annotated as to whether they are in prevailing usage. Again, no 
one can know for certain whether a published combination is using the 
correct spelling unless they consult that list. This list is EXTREMELY 
difficult to compile, as it requires access not just to each and every 
piece of original literature, but *every single publication ever using a 
given name*. Worse, the definition of prevailing usage is EXTREMELY 
subjective, and the source of interminable disputes. Additionally, it's 
unclear how this model proposes to treat names not presently used as valid.

(3) For an arbitrary date, that list if a complete list of all species 
names, annotated as to what spelling they had on date X. Again, no one 
can know for certain whether a published combination is using the 
correct spelling unless they consult that list. This list is harder to 
compile than the original spelling list, but much easier to compile than 
the "prevailing usage" list, *assuming* that a "dispute resolution" 
mechanism can be devised when a species has more than one spelling "in 
use" on date X; it does not completely eliminate subjectivity. It's also 
unclear how *this* model proposes to treat names not presently used as 
valid.

Now, please let that sink in for a moment.

All of these approaches mandate that we compile a complete list of every 
species name, ONE BY ONE. If there are 5000 names published as 
"striatus", and another 5000 published as "striata", and another 500 
"striatum", they must all appear individually in the list.

The model I have proposed is instead to provide (1) a single list of all 
genus-rank names and their genders, and (2) a list of names and suffixes 
that are adjectival and have to change spelling.

This does not require a list of every species name ever published ONE BY 
ONE, nor access to ALL of the original literature.

It requires, e.g., just a single entry for the name 
"striata/striatus/striatum", listing it as adjectival, instead of 10,500 
entries. *This model reduces the 6 million available species-rank names 
down to a few thousand genuinely adjectival names and suffixes*. No 
distinction needs to be drawn between valid species names versus invalid 
names. Anything that is unambiguously a noun doesn't even need to be 
listed at all.

I cannot imagine why people think that this model is a worse alternative 
than the proposals to "fix" spellings in place forever. Those proposals 
are nightmares by comparison.

Moreover, we already have an essentially complete list of all available 
genus-rank names (something around 500,000 ambiregnally), the 
overwhelming majority of which have either had their genders already 
clearly established by expert cataloguers, or for which the assignment 
of gender is mandated by the Code (at least, for the ICZN). There are 
online dictionaries that list essentially all known Latin and Greek 
adjectives.

Compiling the two lists I propose is an *order of magnitude easier* than 
compiling any of the three different lists that would be required under 
the proposals to "fix" spellings, largely because there is only a small 
percentage of names - on the order of 10% of available names - for which 
the original descriptions would *need* to be consulted. Digging into 10% 
of the original literature is a lot easier than digging through 100%. 
Not just that, but if we on the ICZN Commission revise (or maybe even 
eliminate) Article 31.2.2 - where the ICZN allows different authors to 
determine that certain epithets can be an adjective for one author's 
species, and a noun for a different author's species - then we can 
potentially drop that percentage of original literature down to *zero*, 
for species names. Why should "agricola" be a noun in one case, and an 
adjective in another? The botanists don't allow this, so eliminating 
this would be a step towards Code harmonization, as well.

Do you see now why I have been saying that keeping gender agreement is 
the best option we have? ONLY if we keep gender agreement can the 
problem facing us be reduced in scope to just the WORDS used to name 
species, rather than tracking *each individual nomenclatural act*, ONE 
BY ONE. This is, in plain fact, the most important advantage offered by 
gender agreement - you only need to apply a RULE to know how to spell a 
name, instead of having to research each individual name.

Yes, under the status quo, where taxonomists have to do linguistic 
research, because they either don't know the rule, or how it applies to 
a certain case, it's painful and wasteful - but my model proposes to 
take all the linguistic research AWAY from individual taxonomists, and 
apply it exactly ONE time (for each name among the 10% of names that 
require it), in the process of compiling those two lists. Looking a name 
up in the lists would be the only "research" any taxonomist would need 
to do from that day forward.

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%7C0a1406d7c7ae46d4552c08db7e3c0b59%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242568577017538%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BT6kOi7ACBFyUGG6s5OFhJFK4bPMCmPBKpQHV36LzVQ%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82