ICBN too

Barry Roth barry_roth at YAHOO.COM
Sat Jul 14 10:05:59 CDT 2001

Is there really a
"common-names-are-all-we-need-or-want" faction out
there, significant enough that Taxacom members need to
take note of it?

At the time of the publication of the second editon of
the American Fisheries Society's "Common and
Scientific  Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the
United States and Canada:  Mollusks," I remarked
somewhere that the common names might prove to be more
stable over time than the scientific names.  This is
because the choice of the AFS common names is vested
in a committee, whereas the scientific names are based
on applying the rules of the ICZN.  The code is
algorithmic (as pointed out by Lindberg, D. 1999. The
Veliger 42: 194-198), meaning it does not dictate the
outcome in a particular case, but rather prescribes a
set of rules which, if followed, guarantee an outcome
regardless of who is performing the operation.  Both
systems have their strengths and their applications;
it is not a one-or-the-other situation.

Barry Roth

--- Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG> wrote:
> No disrespect to the ICBN or others. My accompaning
> post today is a cross
> post from a butterfly list serve.  As it had to do
> with taxonomy I though I
> would post it here too. SO, "we" can add ICBN to
> this as an equally
> challenged system by the
> common-names-are-all-we-need-or-want crowd among
> the masses.
> Ron

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

More information about the Taxacom mailing list