Taxacom: Mandatory ending correction after 226 years of wrong usage - the Dasytes case

[Douglas Yanega]

On 1/30/25 10:11 AM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> with respect to "  Radical proposals like abandoning gender agreement and
> reverting all names to their original spellings would result in changes to
> the spellings of
> something on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 names across
> zoology. Abandoning gender agreement would be the *most* disruptive thing
> we could possibly do."
>
> just want to be clear that I for one am not an advocate for reverting all
> names to their original spellings. For my group this was a fait accompli,
> at least as determined by three influential taxonomists among an extremely
> small pool of specialists. While I went along with the gender abandonment,
> I don't know if every hepialid taxonomist does. Never had time to survey
> for that.

The key thing here is the "fait accompli" nature of the situation with 
Lepidoptera, and - for those still following this thread - it actually 
reinforces some of the things I've been talking about.

First, because it IS a long-standing tradition, there are not many cases 
in leps where different taxonomists use different spellings for the same 
species' name.

In other words, despite violating the Code, the practice is so universal 
and has been in place for so long that there are no disputes - the names 
are stable, with very few exceptions. In that respect, in my role as a 
Commissioner, I don't get too upset about it, because one of the most 
important mandates of the Commission is stability (again, defined as a 
consensus of treatment, not the absence of change). So long as lep names 
are *stable*, it does not run counter to the SPIRIT of the Code, even 
though it might violate the LETTER of the Code.

Second, and this is perhaps a more subtle point, but also important: the 
fact that lepidopterists do not adhere to gender agreement makes them a 
good "test case" for what it would look like if everyone else were to 
follow suit, and it raises some VERY meaningful issues.

Consider this:

Suppose you look at a set of butterfly names that all refer to the same 
taxon, let's say

Mitoura grynea

Mitoura gryneus

Callophrys grynea

Callophrys gryneus

Lycus gryneus

Just looking at these names, *you can't tell* which ones are spelled 
correctly. If you're a taxonomist encountering one of these names for 
the very first time, you absolutely MUST consult an official list of 
names, published by an authoritative source and based on the original 
description, to know for certain how the species name should be spelled.

If gender agreement applied here, then there would be no mystery, and no 
need at all to consult an official list of butterfly names. Mitoura 
grynea, Callophrys grynea, and Lycus gryneus, would be correct spellings 
in their respective genera. It's *easy*.

So, by virtue of rejecting gender agreement, you sacrifice the ability 
to - in *most* cases - simply look at a name and KNOW when it's right or 
wrong, in exchange for having to consult a list that will tell you what 
is or is not correct. There is, in fact, a COST to rejecting gender 
agreement. You may not need to use a dictionary, but you still need to 
research the correct spelling. In fact, you need to know the *original* 
spelling, meaning consulting a lot of old literature. You're trading one 
sort of research for another. Individual lepidopterists benefit only if 
someone else has *already* compiled lists of spellings from the original 
literature, and made that list available.

Here's the thing, though - if you're already committed to the fact that 
you have to consult an official list that tells you how a name should be 
spelled, why not use an official list that ALSO tells you whether a name 
is a noun or an adjective? Then you wouldn't have to abandon gender 
agreement, and you wouldn't need to personally research the linguistics 
behind every name. Just look it up in the list.

I have actually undertaken this project, and am very near completion - a 
list of the genders of all ~380,000 available zoological genus-rank 
names, plus a second list of words that are declinable adjectives. 
Individual taxonomists from ANY discipline will benefit since someone 
else has compiled these lists, and I can make those lists available when 
I'm done.

We can keep gender agreement AND get rid of the burden where individual 
taxonomists need to either do linguistic research (as non-lepidopterists 
do), OR read all of the original literature (as lepidopterists do).

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314  voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (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%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7203e7beac144193eea008dd41641a8b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638738621132355912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NwrKX8mVBZreBQAlAzHfdZEEfhg%2BaIKs%2B87yogQn4Iw%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82