Latin publication

[Richard Jensen]

Thomas G. Lammers wrote:

> At 08:35 AM 03-02-99 -0800, Richard Jensen wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> C'mon, Dick!  Even if coinage goes out of daily use, dimensional data will
> always be available in the numismatic literature.

Gee, now taxonomists need to be numismatists, too.  Maybe I overstated my case, but
we have to remember that we are writing not just for todays' audience, but
potentially for an audience in the far future.

> >Yes, it is a "hardship" to have to learn to read and (even more so) write
> Latin.
>
> I disagree, at least as regards the English-speaking world.  I say that
> anyone with a sound command of English (perhaps *that* is too much to assume
> these days) can pick up Stearn's "Botanical Latin" and write a serviceable
> Latin diagnosis inside of an hour.  (I do not know if similar "cookbooks"
> are available in other languages.)    Diagnoses are largely just a noun like
> "Arbor" or "Herba" followed by a string of nouns in ablative case with
> adjectives that have to match in number; no verbs to worry about aside from
> "is" and "differs".  We're not talking Virgil here!   Yes, Rupert Barnaby
> and folks of his scholarly generation can make them far more elegant, but
> almost anyone who can read Stearn can write a serviceable, grammatical
> correct, Code-compliant diagnosis without any hardship.

Notice I put hardship in quotes.  I agree that it is not necessarily difficult, but
those who have to learn it will view it as a "hardship."  Good grief, my students
think it is a hardship to have to do simple math without a calculator or to have to
learn the difference between gene and allele.  If that's a hardship, then what must
having to sit down for an hour with a Latin text be?

>
>
> >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.
>
> Can you quote me chapter and verse on that?  This situation may lead you to
> place a validly published name in synonymy, but I don't think it is
> sufficient grounds for denying that it is validly published in the first
> place.  But you are correct in your main point: it is up to the peer review
> process to see that inadequate diagnoses are not published.  Switching the
> language required is no guarantee of increased competence.

Sorry, I was lax in using "invalidating" when I should have used synonymizing.
Gosh, it's difficult to express oneself clearly even in one's native tongue!


--
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