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

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 02:34:23 CST 2015


Well, it does make a difference in the case in question (raw figures
without correcting for duplicate authors:
2012-2015 Diplogasteridae: 151
2012-2015 Diplogastridae: 193

(In other words the situation has flipped within the last 3 years, possibly
a little more)

- Tony

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

On 3 November 2015 at 18:36, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

> >>> It is, and must be, implicit that assessment of usage applies to the
> date the 4th Edition was published
>
> I do not agree. The concept of "prevailing usage" should be taken to mean
> 'as of now' or 'current'. There is nothing particular about the year 2000,
> and defining "prevailing usage" with this year as a fix-point would become
> still more strange as time goes by.
> I agree that there is a risk of 'flip-flopping' as described by Doug,
> which simply adds to my disinclination towards relying on prevailing usage
> as currently defined to be an effective instrument for establishing
> stability in nomenclature.
>
> There is growing evidence that the concept of 'prevailing usage' should be
> carefully considered, perhaps even abandoned, in the next version of the
> Code.
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Doug Yanega
> Sent: 3. november 2015 00:57
> To: Sven Kullander; taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Formation of family names e.g. Diplogasteridae vs.
> Diplogastridae in Nematoda (and similar)
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list