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

[Tony Rees]

I just wanted to say that I feel Doug makes a very strong case with his
last post, not least on a cost:benefit basis. I am not sure how we "vote"
on this forum (or even if that is strictly applicable), but if a few people
wish to be identified as agreeing with one position of several alternatives
offered, maybe there should be a means to indicate and tabulate this in
some manner... (like a poll) once all the various arguments have been put...

Also noting (with tongue only slightly in cheek...) "It is difficult to
make any method completely foolproof, because fools can be so ingenious..."

Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf1fd7c5a5bca4ffaf56e08db7e51d738%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242662189621592%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NgBO%2FTJ8%2Bx%2F1FZqqXGAIPwrtHnX4Zi8AiQKAspVOC2Y%3D&reserved=0



On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 02:14, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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%7Cf1fd7c5a5bca4ffaf56e08db7e51d738%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242662189621592%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ehbE2yCxPbdUznrhjO9jCA58lcq2wsz4XZJQoIYXsIs%3D&reserved=0
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> _______________________________________________
>