standardized abbreviations

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

Someone suggested use of standardized abbreviations for generic
names. I have some experience with such systems and have a
few comments.
    The Roman alphabet (as currently used in most present-day
languages)  has 26 letters. There are thus 17,576 potential
3-letter combinations (26 cubed). This is not nearly enough
to assign a different combination to each genus.
  Various federal agencies in the US use standardized
abbreviations of 4 or 5 letters for various plant species. I assume they
do the same for animals, although I have no direct knowledge of
this. These systems work only because they deal with a very
limited subset of the total biota on earth. Our colleague
yesterday stated that 5-letter abbreviations serve to
designate "all weed species."  Well, no. They are used to designate
all weed species within a limited geographic area. If one were
to include tropical, Australian, or South African weeds, I am
sure the system would become unworkable. Add trees, wild shrubs,
wild herbs, etc., and forget it.
   However, on the family level, 3-letter abbreviations are
sufficient. Someone once published a list of 3-letter abbreviations
in use at a herbarium; I published a similar list for fungal families
in 1984.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."