[Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -oops

Dr Brian Taylor dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Sun May 22 00:55:14 CDT 2016

Perhaps the question should be "How necessary is gender agreement?".

Brian Taylor

On 22/05/2016, 02:05, "David Redei" <david.redei at gmail.com> wrote:

> Francisco,

your question is, "how successful is gender agreement in
> zoological
nomenclature". I cannot fully get your point, how can gender
> agreement be
"successful" or "unsuccessful"? Does "successful" mean that all
> or most
authors apply gender agreement rules correctly?

According to your
> experience, gender agreement is "partly successful,
partly unsuccessful" (in
> Mollusca). What does this mean? Does it mean that
some authors apply gender
> agreement rules correctly, and some fail to do
so? If yes, I would say that
> this would be the result if examining any
other aspects of zoological
> nomenclature: type species designation, type
specimen designation, correct
> Latinization, correct formation of stems etc.
Many people apply the rules
> correctly, many fail to do so, I have seen
wrong family group names containing
> a wrongly formed stem, failed or
missing type species and holotype
> designations, failed neotype designations
etc., so one might say that all
> Articles of the Code are "partly
successful, partly unsuccessful". But I have
> the impression that in most
cases the main problem is not that the rules are
> overly complex, the main
problem is that many people publish who should not
> publish (as I told, poor
Latin grammar usually correlates with poor
> descriptions and poor taxonomy).
You can modify the Code in any way, a
> significant portion of people simply
will not read it. I do not think that the
> best policy is to modify the Code
in that way that the ignorant authors' act

More information about the Taxacom mailing list