[Taxacom] Neoromicia nanus or Neoromicia nana?
dyanega at ucr.edu
Tue Jan 14 11:55:26 CST 2014
On 1/14/14 4:26 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
>> On 1/13/14 11:11 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> This is perhaps a good example of why the Code requires simplification?
>>> Endless debate over Latin grammar doesn't really help biological
>> I figured you wouldn't be able to restrain yourself. This is precisely
>> why I commented that we can use registration to solve the problem. Once
>> a name is registered as a noun or adjective, the debate ENDS.
> I am not in favour of a rule that the First Person to Place an Entry into
> an electronic data resource has the right to take such a decision and to
> stop a debate in this form. There must be escape rules what to do if the
> entry is incorrect, and there again the debate would continue.
As this system has not been implemented yet, there are details that can
be ironed out, and one of those details is that Registered records are
likely to be in "tiers" based on the degree of review they have
received. That is, a raw entry into ZooBank would have no formal
standing (lowest tier) until it has been reviewed and confirmed by at
least one other person to ensure the entry is thorough and accurate;
once confirmed (middle tier), it would be subject to community review
for a specified time period, and if it receives a certain number of
affirmations, it could be declared Official and unalterable (upper
tier). The step you are concerned about would be incorporated into that
public review period. In other words, instead of the debate ending the
instant a name is Registered, the debate would end after a fixed time
interval (maybe a year at most). This is somewhat similar to the LAN
mechanism that is already in place in the Code - Article 79 - except
that the LAN process takes 4 years.
>> Robert's arguments, BTW, are sound, but the ICZN does indeed work
>> differently from botany; if a name can be either a noun or an adjective
>> (which is what is claimed for nanus), then it is noun by default under
>> Art. 31.2.2.
> I also regard this point as valid, however I do not consider this as a
> useful rule. It seems the rule is not used in the community, at least not
> strictly, and at least not by the malacological community. It should be
> replaced by a better rule in the next edition. I fully agree with Stephen.
I would hazard to guess that if the malacological community were
informed that they had exactly one year to come to an agreement on
disputed names, after which those names would no longer be subject to
debate, then this problem could be solved within a year. If the
community is tired of endless debates, then just implement a deadline
like this or submit a LAN proposal.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom