Latin ...

[Dr MH Villet]

JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE writes:

<snip>

>    The Latin diagnosis serves two purposes. I would not
> favor any proposal that did not meet these concerns.
>
> 1) First, and most obviously, it internationalizes ...

Systematists wanting to further careers are naturally going to choose
languages that maximise their audience. "Yanomamo or Kirghizian or even
Klingon" would not acheive this, and few scientists would choose notoriety
as a vehicle to fame. There is no need to prescribe on this issue.
Zoological and bacterial nomenclature are relevant examples.


> 2) Second, the Latin requirement prevents casual creation
> of valid names.

If there was a requirement for a statement of differentiating characters
(rather than just a description of characters), and for specification of
type material, it would be equally difficult to publish by accident in any
language. One can easily create "what if..." situations, but generally one
has to be fairly willful to take most of them seriously. As past rounds of
that game have shown (see the TAXACOM archives), no system will be foolproof
(and I use that adjective with forethought!)

... and there is no need to publish in more than one language if it has a
broad SCIENTIFIC audience. My experience of descriptions written in Chinese
is that pictograms are not sufficiently specific to provide unambiguous
descriptions, even for my colleagues from China.

Best wishes,
--

  Martin H. Villet                /~~~--~\     Tel +27 [0]46 603 8527
                                  \__     \_  FAX: +27 [0]46 622 4377
  Dept of Zoology & Entomology       \     /
  Rhodes University                  |    /
  Grahamstown, South Africa 6140      \_*/   Email: M.Villet at ru.ac.za