[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 ...).


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
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