[Taxacom] Formation of family names e.g. Diplogasteridae vs. Diplogastridae in Nematoda (and similar)

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 00:50:21 CST 2015


Hi Doug,

I do follow your logic, however it must then also be pointed out that in
all future editions of the Code which include this provision must be
explicitly stated the requirement for an prevailing usage assessment as at
2000 (I believe this concept is known as "grandfathering"), otherwise
exactly the type of "assessment date creep" that you outline as undesirable
will occur with successive editions...

Best regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees


>  On 11/2/15 2:51 PM, Sven
>  Kullander wrote:
>  > Article 29.5 says
>  "is in prevailing usage". It does not say
>  "was in prevailing usage in 2000".  Prevailing
>  usage had to be assessed based on most recent usage
>  frequency by current/most recent specialists, not at a
>  specific point back in time, which would be counter to the
>  idea of prevailing usage as a best estimate of current
>  adoption of a name (even if such adoption may have been
>  initiated long ago) by specialists on the group.
>  >
>  It is, and must be,
>  implicit that assessment of usage applies to the
>  date the 4th Edition was published - prior, but
>  not subsequent. Any
>  other interpretation
>  would render this and all similar Articles
>  *absolutely worthless*. Consider this
>  scenario:
>
>  Prior to 2000, 5
>  authors use spelling A. In 2000, when the new Code
>  comes out, one of these authors cites spelling
>  A, and points out that it
>  is in prevailing
>  usage, and therefore must be maintained under 29.5. In
>  2005, a different author claims that they
>  believe spelling B is correct,
>  and
>  convinces 9 other authors to use spelling B in 2006. This
>  violates
>  Article 29.5, and if we accepted
>  it, it would switch the spelling from A
>  to
>  B (10>5). If 10 more authors then came out in 2009 and
>  published
>  using spelling A, the spelling
>  would switch back to A (15>10). If 15
>  more authors then published in 2012 using
>  spelling B, it would switch
>  back to B again
>  (25>15). It could therefore flip flop back and forth
>  FOREVER, which is about as unstable as you
>  could possibly get.
>
>  Clearly, the Article is NOT intended to allow
>  spelling to change back
>  and forth
>  indefinitely based solely on who has swung the pendulum in
>
>  their favor most recently. All of the
>  Articles invoking prevailing usage
>  MUST
>  have a date beyond which the assessment stops, or ALL of
>  them could
>  be easily circumvented by simply
>  out-publishing one's competitors. The
>  Code is intended to STOP the arguments, not
>  prolong them into infinity.
>
>  Peace,
>
>  --
>  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)
>                http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>     "There are some enterprises
>  in which a careful disorderliness
>
>     is the true method" - Herman Melville,
>  Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list