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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

My dear, what an endless debate. This gender debate issue pops up every 
once and a while, but rarely in such an intensity as this time.

I imagine 30 years ago there have been almost exactly the same 
arguments, and Code-4 did not find a solution. If Code-5 does not find a 
solution the endless debate will be perpetuated.

As the head of the Code-5 Committee I am not happy with this situation.

I am asking myself what an average lepidopterist would say? Maybe they 
would just say "We are so happy that we do not need to discuss such 
stuff, we can just smile that we do not have these problems, and can 
spend our precious time with doing bioscientific research on the animals 
we are working on".

Basically I belong to those who do not know Latin, and who do not know 
the meaning of flava. Names have always been just names to me, I just 
never have been interested in what flava means. I can understand that 
others, in particular botanists who had to publish Latin diagnoses until 
recently, find some help in the meaning of such names. This belongs to 
the field of personal choices and preferences. It is nothing where I 
could say that the entire zoological community would unanimously approve 
any statement in this concern. Some will find Latin helpful, others not.

We are trying to improve the Code, to facilitate its reading and the 
application of nomenclatural rules - on the other hand, in the 
Commission we are working on the base of majority decisions. At the end 
I might have to execute some decisions that I would personally consider 
being in conflict with the basic task, which is to facilitate the 
application of nomenclatural rules, and making the Code robust for a 
zoological community in the future. But if the majority vote is to have 
the Code mainly for those who find Latin helpful, and not for the 
others, I will have to execute that.

Adam and Doug made some excellent points that would allow us to advance 
a few steps ahead.
I currently do not see that those who argue that gender agreement should 
just be maintained in the encrusted system we currently have, would 
contribute much to a solution of the problem. They did not 30 years ago, 
and I would not expect a different result now.

And I note another thing: The one side tries repeatedly to find 
compromises, the other side does not try to find compromise solutions.

Adam's suggestion to work with prevailing usage could eventually be 
implemented in the Code. Currently prevailing usage only works for 
spelling issues (Arts. 33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1), and it is unclear under 
which conditions the term is precisely applicable.
It could be applied for species-group name endings (endings could be 
fixed by this method), and the conditions could be fixed.
The conditions will have to be fixed anyway. Fixing a spelling as in 
prevailing usage would become a nomenclatural act, to be published, with 
25 works to be cited like in Art. 23.9.2 which works quite successfully, 
and the proportion of prevailing usage could be required as having to be 
higher than some 80 or 90 %. Such a regulation would replace Arts. 
33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1.
This could not be done with the ending (if a species was located in the 
same genus for the last 80 years it would always have had the same 
ending), but something similar could be invented. An author who placed a 
species-group name into a genus of different gender could have the 
option to fix the ending as undeclineable, in an act somehow similar to 
Art. 70.3.

Basic line: Adam's proposals could be implemented in Code-5.

Doug made some suggestions that could change workflows and release 
taxonomists from having to consult the Code for a guideline how to 
determine genders and declineability of specific names. They could just 
either consult a published list (with free access), or they could 
consult a scientific body, a group of people who would provide correct 
answers within a few days or weeks.

Doug suggested to align Art. 31.2.2 with this approach. This could be 
implemented - given that such a list would be established and placed 
permanently at the users' disposal, with a permanent financial supply 
that would allow to modify entries. I would prefer the list under such 
conditions going online first, and then changing the Code.

Determining a gender of a genus-group name could be easier. A body of 
experts could to the job, and in the Code we would just state that for 
the gender this body is to be consulted. Also here, before we modify the 
Code we would have to establish such a body and see if it works.

Basic line: I currently see no option to propose regulations in a 
revised Code that would be in line with Dougs (otherwise excellent) 
proposals. This would require some preconditions.

One final point: We are talking about zoological nomenclature. We should 
keep in mind that in the gender debate we are only talking about 
non-lepidopteran nomenclature. This comprises only 90 % of zoology.
I have been advocating to integrate the remaining 10 % of zoologists 
inside the frame we are providing, but I currently see no majority 
trends that would support such a move. As the head of the Code-5 
Committee I can only follow the majority vote, which is currently facing 
an approach that retains the lepidopteran tradition outside the frame. 
Adam is trying to integrate lepidopterology into the Code's frame.
My personal preference would be that lepidopteran nomenclature in the 
future would follow a fixed written frame in terms of gender agreement.

Francisco