Latin publication

[Richard Jensen]

Mark Garland wrote:

> Why not Latin?  Mainly because plant taxonomists have ceased to communicate
> effectively in this language.  See Joseph Laferriere's point about the very
> short Latin diagnoses that are now so common.
>
> There seems to be an assumption that plant taxonomists form a linguistic
> community held together by Latin (I think Stearn says this in Botanical
> Latin).  If they did once, they don't now.  And they *will* find a way to
> communicate their discoveries if they use modern languages.  I don't even
> think you will have to mandate any particular language.  I'll just point to
> zoology again.  Are zoological taxonomists lost in a Babel of incomprehension?
> (While plant taxonomists are in some sort of original state of grace, I
> guess.)
>
> Without Latin descriptions, will taxonomists still need to know Latin?  Yes,
> if they want to read the older literature.  They just won't have to worry
> about writing it.

This is interesting.  I know a zoologist who has encountered numerous problems
with taxonomic descriptions in other languages (and sometimes even in English!)
because the expressions used do not translate unambiguously.  Languages around the
world are rife with idiomatic expressions that are well-understood by those in the
know, but are less than obvious to the rest of us.  And these expressions
themselves evolve in ways that are unforeseen (does everyone who comes across the
movie title "The Gay Divorcee" know what the movie is about?).  As an analogy,
think of all the illustrations that have included a US dime or quarter as a size
reference.  I can imagine a time in the future when these coins will be unknown
and there will be consternation over the lack of clear indication of the size of
the objects pictured.  This also reminds me of those who used witness trees for
establishing the boundaries of their property.  After all, these trees would be
around forever, right?

 There is someting to be said for adopting a single standard (one language) and
adopting one that is not subject to capricious change in meaning.  Yes, it is a
"hardship" to have to learn to read and (even more so) write Latin.   But this is
a hardship that is well worth the time needed.  My students complain about having
to learn the basis for the various statistics that we use: Why do I need to know
this when the program will give me the answer?  Just because someting is "hard" or
takes time, or requires careful thought, doesn't mean we should throw it out.
Good science demands rigor in all phases of the work reported.

I recognize the problem of short, and uninformative, Latin descriptions.  So,
we'll just replace them with short and uninformative English, French, Spanish,
Russian, etc. descriptions.  Better yet, why require any written description at
all.  For simplicity, let's just require that there be an illustration of the
critical aspects of the specimen (with a standard US coin as the size reference)
and let the reader make the necessary inferences.

Good editors will not accept poor descriptions.  And, if the descriptions are
poor, this can be used as a basis for invalidating the name.  All that would be
necessary is to demonstrate that the description provided fails to differentiate
the proposed taxon from an already existing taxon.

Your last point actually makes the case for keeping Latin.  We must always consult
the older literature and we have to make sure we are able to understand what it
says.  How can I evaluate the proposal of a new species if I don't know how it
compares to the existing species?  At least the old descriptions are written in a
form that is resistant to the evolutionary changes that plague (or improve;
depends on your point of view) modern languages.
--
Richard J. Jensen              TEL: 219-284-4674
Department of Biology      FAX: 219-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         E-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN  46556     http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen