English

[Una Smith]

My vote is for English (or at least *not* Latin).  Here is why:  I am
a graduate student (yes, really!), but unlike most American scientists
my age, I took Latin in school for 4 years.  I even went in for Junior
Classical League:  I attended national conferences at which we recited
poetry, held debates, and competed in quiz-show contests, all in Latin.
I also took Spanish and German, for 2 years each, and I have lived and
done field research in countries where Spanish and German are spoken.

I have read taxonomic descriptions in several foreign languages, and
I must say that those written in languages other than English, but by
native speakers, have been far easier for me to understand than most
Latin descriptions.  Whether the Latin was poorly written, or my own
comprehension of Latin has declined (due to my minimal use of it?), I
do not know, but I *do* know I don't want to use Latin if some other,
modern language is available.

Another thing:  descriptions are theory-laden, in that the terms we
apply are based on implicit theoretical assumptions about character
identity and homology relationships.  These theories change in time,
and there exist differences of theoretical opinion between speakers
of different languages, because trained in different "schools".  For
each school to "map" it's own evolving ideas onto fixed terms in a
dead language (Latin), seems to me a sure path to disaster.  This is
because the use of a common, fixed vocabulary can only conceal vital
differences of meaning.

        Una Smith                       una.smith at yale.edu

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104