Latin etc.

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

Dr. Jensen raises some very valid arguments. If
one is to require a single language, Latin has
the advantage that is ALREADY IS in use as such.
If we change now, botanists of the future will have
to learn Tagalog or whatever language we make universal,
in order to read the newer descriptions, plus Latin to
read the older ones.
  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?
American English and British English are commonly
considered variants of the same language, while
Bahasa Malay and Bahasa Indonesia (about as different
as New York English and New Jersey English) are not.
Same for Danish and Norwegian.
   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.
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. I suppose you could
imitate the requirement for citation of basionyms during
a recombination statement. It says that you must cite
the basionym, but if you do it wrong it is okay.

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