[Taxacom] Neoromicia nanus or Neoromicia nana?

Chris Thompson xelaalex at cox.net
Tue Jan 14 11:20:25 CST 2014


All:

Sorry, I apparently did not make myself clear.

Look at this long dialogue about an ancient language and then ask what it as 
to do with SCIENCE and most importantly to the PUBLIC.

As Science which should be helping people understand biodiversity, 
understand changes to biodiversity, and most importantly what we can do to 
make the best choices to maintain a biodiversity fauna for us, humans.

NOTHING!

What we need is UNIQUE identifiers to species-group concepts, most of which 
represent real populations of individuals, etc.

But instead we waste time on arguing about whether it is Neoromicia nanUS or 
Neoromicia nanA.

Wonder why taxonomy is not viewed as real science by most?

This is a clear example.

Rather than using our limited resources to address questions of IMPORTANCE, 
we instead argue whether the name should end in "us" or "a"

Oh, well ... I should really have ignored this and, instead, documented some 
endangered species!

Sincerely,

Chris

from home

-----Original Message----- 
From: Laurent Raty
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:18 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Neoromicia nanus or Neoromicia nana?

Hi Francisco,

I agree. Rules based on an imprecise notion of prevailing usage are a
receipt for multiple spellings ending up used simultaneously by authors
who interpret the rules differently.

I wasn't trying to promote the use of prevailing usage as a solution: I
was merely pointing out that the current rules do not, in any way,
protect incorrect gender agreements, however prevailing their usage may
be. Gender agreement is mandatory, in exactly the same way as it is
mandatory to use an -idae ending for a family name.

Laurent -


On 01/14/2014 04:07 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> Laurent,
>
> "prevailing usage" is no solution for such a problem either. I am strictly
> in favour of refining Art. 33.2.3.1 and Art. 33.3.1 in that for
> determining "prevailing usage" there should be clear provisions, in a form
> they were established for Art. 23.9.1 (reversal of precedence). These
> rules should include provisions that the involved names must be frequently
> used, and that a certain spelling must be definitely regarded as incorrect
> after establishing a valid nomenclatural act. In the current form the
> regulation is too arbitrary.
>
> The experience tells us that in their current form the rules implying
> "prevailing usage" produce more conflicts than they actually help. In the
> few years that have passed after this rule was introduced we have
> accumulated a significant number of totally useless and undesired debates
> in publications in the malacological community about the correct spellings
> of certain molluscan names that are used once in a decade or so.
>
> People start citing six publications from the past 50 years and argue that
> a misspelling is in prevailing usage because only in two papers the name
> was spelled correctly. Others introduce a misspelling and use that one in
> two subsequent papers and a few internet resources, and 3 years later they
> argue the misspelling is in prevailing usage. All this is often associated
> with serious conflicts that quickly lead to hostility among competing
> colleagues in the same animal group. This is not a good development. The
> nomenclatural rules should promote more harmony in the community, because
> if more people work together this gives better scientific results.
>
> Francisco
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> On 01/14/2014 02:20 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>>> As for the past, beware of Art. 33.3.1, what I call the "Tubbs" clause.
>>> That
>>> is, regardless of whether name is properly or improperly formed
>>> originally,
>>> the "... spelling ... in prevailing usage ...  is deemed to be the
>>> correct
>>> original spelling."
>>>
>>> So, one needs only to determine whether Neoromicia nanus is used more
>>> than
>>> Neoromicia nana. Language is irrelevant as usage determined the "correct
>>> original spelling!"
>>
>> The "Tubbs" clause doesn't apply here, I fear.
>>
>> The Code recognises three types of subsequent spellings (Art.33.1):
>> - emendations,
>> - incorrect subsequent spellings, and
>> - mandatory changes.
>> There is a clause protecting prevailing usage in the case of (otherwise)
>> unjustified emendations (Art.33.2.3.1) and in the case of (otherwise)
>> incorrect subsequent spelling (33.3.1). A change in ending due to gender
>> agreement is neither: it is a mandatory change, covered by Art.34.2.
>> There is no clause protecting prevailing usage in this case.
>>
>> Cheers, Laurent -


_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom 
your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013. 





More information about the Taxacom mailing list