[Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tue Dec 21 22:02:12 CST 2010

Hi Geoff,

Well, I thought the magic bullet might be a little quicker than the discussion to date - but maybe not... the ICZN/Code bye-line is "standards, sense, and stability for animal names in science" which is what I was (optimistically?) hoping for in this instance...

On your other point - I do indeed have a data system that accommodates both endings, however as presently designed (and most likely in common with other similar systems), it incorporates the concept of only one being "correct" / valid / current at any one time, with any others for the same taxon being synonyms or otherwise non-current versions. Designing a system to cope with multiple current scientific names for any taxon would be a separate exercise and against the intentions of the Code, surely?
Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:22 PM
> To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name
> Tony,
> The magic bullet? After a day of debate? Could we agree that probably it
> is don't waste your time on such code fluff?
> Have a system that accommodates both versions and cross references them.
> Wait for someone to tell you if you've got anything wrong & why. Move on
> meantime.
> We have a couple of busybody-initiated 'improved endings' families with
> extra syllables in the polychaetes. Prevailing usage has adopted them
> sometime before I was on the scene, but still those less cool than the
> rest of us will use the passe short versions.
> Geoff
> Tony Rees wrote:
> "Suggestions, authoritative or not would be welcome as to which name would
> be more appropriate to follow at this time - at present my preference
> would be for the longer form since that appears to be used in arguably
> more authoritative sources, but I am open to other evidence. For example
> in Zoological Record, a search on "Pericelidae" yields one hit only, but
> Pericelididae yields none...   Pericelidae has 13 hits on Google scholar,
> Pericelididae has 3.
> Does anyone have a magic bullet here, maybe?
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list