An inordinate fondness for abbreviation

[Alexey V. Kuprijanov]

Dear Colleagues,

Three ideas concerning the subject came to my mind.

1. Once I was told by a friend of mine that among tardigradologists
(haven't I introduced a neologism?) there is a set of codified
two- or three-letter generic names' abbreviations. So, a genus
can be easily and unambiguously identified even in an abbreviated
form. Of course, this solution is unacceptable at larger scale for
even a full set of possible three letter long words is unsufficient
to encode all the generic names, let alone our hope to make this
on the basis of true abbreviations and not just arbitrary codes.
But within the limits of a given group some conventional standard
abbreviations can be introduced for 'economic' reasons.

2. Would it not be a little annoying if we face in a faunistic list
a sequence like that follows?

Hemibatrachotherium majus
Hemibatrachotherium minus
Hemibatrachotherium justinamiddle
<...>
Hemibatrachotherium lastbutnotheleast

(some twenty species snipped)

I think we should keep generic names' abbreviations for such cases
at least.

3. Wouldn't it be worthwile to make the style of taxonomic publications,
at least in the part of discussion, a bit more colloquial? In such a case
we will not be restricted by a set of so rigorous and highly formal rules
as, for instance, not to use an unabbreviated generic name twice. These
are people who read our papers, not the computers. So, my vote is for a
balanced approach to the abbreviations. The only problem which for ages
will remain unsettled is how to convince editors...

Yours sincerely, Alexey

---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexey V. Kuprijanov            (Lepidoptera: Incurvarioidea)
Institute for the History of Science and Technology
Universitetskaya emb. 5
St. Petersburg 199034
R U S S I A                      e-mail: Q at TINEA.USR.PU.RU
---------------------------------------------------------------