Latin etc.

[Richard Jensen]

JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE wrote:

>   The "5%" of the world's population criterion would
> open a major can of worms beyond the one problem
> you suggest. Whose census figures do you believe?
> How do you draw boundaries between languages?
>

I didn't intend this as a suggestions for a criterion - for the very
reasons that you note.  It is purely artificial and obviously difficult
to reconcile.

>    Question: how would you propose solving the
> problem with Latin I outlined a few hours ago, i.e.
> that some botanists write uselessly minimal diagnoses in
> Latin, just barely enough to cover the code. This
> meets the letter of the law but not the spirit.

See my reply to Mark Garland.  Editors and reviewers have the
responsibility for making the decision to accept these diagnoses.  If
they really are useless, then that can be used to invalidate the name.

> Some journals (e.g. Novon) insist on short diagnoses
> rather than lengthy Latin descriptions. I can think of
> only two options: 1) minimum number of words [appallingly
> artificial] or 2) require that whatever description
> is provided in a modern language be translated
> in toto into Latin. The problem with the latter (apart
> from editors objecting to the printing costs) is
> what happens if the two do not turn out to be
> perfect translations.

Do the lengths of the descriptions significantly increase publishing
costs?  I see lots of empty space in many journals (I just pulled three
issues off my shelves - recent issues of Syst. Bot., Syst. Biol., and
Taxon) and found the equivalent of  three or more blank pages in each.
And, wouldn't a single well-written Latin diagnosis be more parsimonious
than two diagnoses in different 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