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

[lynn]

Not one of the proposals appears to have unanimous support. It occurs to me that there could be a simple solution to all of this. This is that from the date of the next code all genus and species names should end with the letter “a” not representing any gender but rather the fact that zoology deals with animalia. If the name already ends in “a” then it remains the same but otherwise the final letter is added. No need to check genders or original usage or even the latest known usage.
Ridiculous? Maybe, but still a lot simpler even for those like George who have no interest in the meanings of names or figuring out gender agreement, instead preferring to search for the original names used for each species. It might even satisfy the gender agreement camp as it superficially looks like gender agreement even though it isn’t.
Lynn Raw

> On 6 Jul 2023, at 18.14, 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%7C9c3d623a43cf479475d408db7e554b22%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242677017980624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=79JZXvcJufusSRfBeaTwSq2760cwsW38kMXP3oE2%2BmE%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%7C9c3d623a43cf479475d408db7e554b22%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638242677017980624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pPJj17y3%2FNaeKk7FaB0Nxrm3AzHS2I%2BaRpm1PVo5QFY%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.