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

Paul Kirk P.Kirk at kew.org
Sun May 22 05:30:23 CDT 2016


Probably not required in the digital age (GNA=GNI+GNUB) ... gender agreement, whilst still nice, is a little like trying to enforce pronunciation agreement ... you 'say tomato I, say tomato' (or closer to the topic: aluminium vs. aluminum, tyre vs. tire, colour vs. color ...).

Paul

________________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Dr Brian Taylor <dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com>
Sent: 22 May 2016 06:55
To: David Redei; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN - gender of genus-group name ending in -oops

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

_______________________________________________
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

Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list