abbreviations for author names

[John Grehan]

Martin,

While you might have strong feelings about what Chris has said (and I
have not been following the conversation that closely that I even
recall), those feelings themselves have no empirical weight (and they
are somewhat uninformative). What if Chris were to accuse you of the
same things? If you have strong feelings about what views others should
or should not be able to express, a list server becomes problematic
since it will always involve contributions from a diverse array of
viewpoints and some will be totally and irreconcilably incompatible.

John Grehan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Spies, Martin
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:40 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] abbreviations for author names
> 
> It is pointless and a waste of time to try to discuss anything with
> someone who habitually shifts to another issue instead of addressing
the
> other person's argument. Therefore, let it be known here that no more
> replies from me from here on won't mean that I have bought into Chris'
> rambling schemes.
> 
> In an ideal future situation - when all homonyms, etc., have been
> resolved - we might be able to get by without information in addition
to
> the bare scientific names. Such nirvana could be reached, e.g., if
> ZooBank were established and extended all the way back to the
beginning
> of zoological nomenclature, or if for each and every group of animals
an
> Official List in the sense of the ICZN Code were established. However,
> as everybody knows, we are far away from such a dream world. Instead,
> under the present circumstances, treating additional data such as
> taxonomic authors' names as irrelevant or "junk" would lead to
confusion
> in many cases and therefore counteract rather than promote the purpose
> of nomenclature: meaningful communication about the named organisms.
> 
> And as far as funding goes: If you want to turn your opinion about
what
> is scientifically sound and meaningful with the current largest volume
> of hot air generated by the latest passing fad, then go ahead and
> abandon what you've been working for for decades. But then please
don't
> go around spreading what constitutes misinformation and claiming that
> your guideline in doing so is science rather than a combination of
panic
> and opportunism.
> 
> --
> Martin Spies
> c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
> Germany