An inordinate fondness for abbreviation

[Geoff Read]

> * I thought the 'rule' was that the generic name was to be written out
> the first time it appeared in each* paragraph,* unless there was no
> possiblilty of ambiguity or confusion.

Consider why we abbreviate generic names. I implied it was to
decrease text length- a book might be shortened by a page or two. It was
suggested to me today that it primarily arose in the days of hot-metal
composition when the printer was burdened with physically putting together
the full letter set of, for example, A-u-s-t-r-a-l-o-p-i-t-h-e-c-u-s. To
save time & money it made sense to abbreviate what could be abbreviated.
But those days are  gone - now we have computers to do the donkey work.

For what reasons should we continue the practice? It comes down to a
balance for readability. One respondent said that we tend to abbreviate
long names, Australopithecus more often than Homo, because the article
then reads better. Another said multiple repetition in full became
tedious. OK, those are good reasons for some judicious occasional, or even
frequent abbreviation. However, the "spell it out once and that's it I
mustn't mention it in full again until X occurs, or hell freezes over"
brigade are misguided. There is no obligation other than to make oneself
instantly understood. A species name with the genus represented by one
letter is just a loose convention, something we've got used to seeing. In
fact the style books I looked at on this point deal mostly with avoiding
the problems abbreviation can bring IF used.

--
   Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>