josephl at CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Sat Jan 13 12:20:20 CST 1996
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:21:15 -0800
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
> It is not unusual to see such things as _Quercus ilex_
> L. HOLM OAK in floras, and the Code does not prohibit use of common names.
> Certainly the common name in this case is a suffix
Most certainly not! This is not a suffix, but rather the words following
the name. If I said "Zea mays L. is tall" would you describe "is tall" as
> I think in the final
> analysis both nomenclature and bibliography *must* be the servants of
> taxonomy, and not the other way around.
I agree 1000%. I was rather perturbed by the statement last week that
said "It is obvious that there is a lot of ignorance about the ICBN,
therefore editors should submit all papers to nomenclature experts before
publication." If the ICBN is now so complex that even editors cannot be
trusted to do things right, this proves the point I made that it needs to
be simplified so a reasonably intelligent person can understand it
without months of study. There are thousands of taxonomists on the
planet, and every single one is an intelligent, educated individual who
needs to be able to use the Code as a tool, not a frustrating obstacle.
I am glad to see the recent suggestions here that informal task-oriented
summaries be published containing the same info as the more formal Code
but in ordinary English rather than Legalese.
More information about the Taxacom