[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Francisco,

> the ICZN Code's definition for "scientific name" given in the 
> Glossary ("scientific name as opposed to vernacular name") 
> includes the definition I gave. The ICZN Code's definitions 
> for such terms are not always consistent with the use of such 
> terms in the spoken language or in the Oxford English 
> dictionary (and then we have to be cautious). They are 
> included there to explain the meanings of these terms in the 
> ICZN Code, often because their meaning is ambiguous and their 
> use in the Code represents only a portion of the entire 
> ranges of meanings of such terms in biological sciences, in 
> broader natural sciences or generally in the English language.

I agree with all of these points, and I do not think that anything in my
previous post contradicts them.

> > In other words, "Homo sapiens" is two
> > names: one genus-group name and one species-group name (the latter 
> > often referred to as an "epithet").
> I disagree and do not interprete the Code in this way. Homo 
> sapiens is the one and single name of a species-group taxon, 
> as defined in the Glossary (a binomen is *one* scientific 
> name, not two). The compound "sapiens" (taken alone) is not a 
> name in the sense of the Code.

You are certainly free to disagree in terms of what *you* mean by a
scientific name, but the Code's glossary seems pretty clear on what the ICZN
Code means.  The first clue is in the definition of "name":

"(3) An *element* of the name of a species-group taxon" [emphasis added]

How else can the word "element" be defined in this context (names of
species-group taxa) except in the sense that "Homo sapiens" contains two
elements, and thus two names?

More explicitly, from the definition of "scientific name":

"The scientific name of a taxon at any rank above the species group consists
of one name; that of a species, two names (a binomen); and that of a
subspecies, three names (a trinomen)"

That's about as explicit as it gets:  a binomen is *two* names, and a
trinomen is *three* names.

Can you point to any passage in the Code that defines "name" the way you do
(i.e., that "Homo sapiens" is *one* name)?

> In any case I agree with you that is is highly desireable to 
> use terms that cannot lead to serious misunderstandings.

Yes.  Of course, the problem is that different communities have different
lexicons, and as such choose terms with specific meanings intuitive to them,
but counterintuitive to other communities.  One of these days I'm going to
create a list of "troublesome words" in biodiversity informatics.  Talk to a
computer programmer about the meaning of words such as "Class", "Type",
"Name", etc., and I guarantee there will be some very serious
misunderstandings (see the earlier thread where we discussed "natural
keys").
 
> I would not use the term "string" in non-electronic environments. 

I don't know that the term "name-string" has been used in any context other
than electronic "environements" (another word that means something different
to a biologist!); but I tend to agree that the term "string" in this context
has a very meaning than it does to a general audience (who may think of
twisted or braided strands of twine, used to tie, for example, one's shoes).
And, of course, a physicist would think in terms of something else
altogether.....

> A string in the sense of the 
> dictionary I am using is a chain of characters. 

Yes -- that is the sense in which it is intended for the term "name-string",
as used by the biodiversity informatics (hence: electronic information
implied) community.

> An incorrectly spelled specific name is the same specific 
> name as the correctly spelled one, but not the same genus 
> species string.

This is *exactly* why we needed to distinguish the notion of a "name-string"
(exact orthography as represented in some context, mis-spelled or
otherwise), from what we cumbersomely refer to as a "name-object" (the
abstract notion of a taxon name, as governed by the Code, which has an
essence that transcends the characters used to represent it on a printed
page or in a computer database).  Properties of a "name-object" include
links to published nomenclatual acts, type specimens, and other such things
governed by the Codes.  As for "name-strings", we even went so far as to
define them as electronic text represented by binary information encoded via
UTF-8 (which was what was implid by the word "Unicode" in the LinneanCore
definition). 

> > relatively broad adoption and consistent usage of the term 
> > "name-string", which is shorter to type than "a text-string 
> purported 
> > to represent a scientific name".
> Both terms are equally inaccurate and ambiguous, they can 
> represent anything. 

To you; yes.  To those of us who invented the term for our internal
conversations, they are not only accurate, but they are unambiguous, and
have GREATLY facilitated our conversations about developing standards and
associated protocols for the electronic exchange and integration of
taxonomic information.  If you want to define new terms that are more
intuitive (or, to use your word, "accurate") for your community, then by all
means please do so.  But at the same time, please do not add confusion to
conversations in *our* community, which we have fought very hard to overcome
by defining terms that make sense to *us*, and facilitate *our*
conversations very effectively.  Note that I have generally not used the
term "name-string" on Taxacom (a different community), except in response to
specific questions about how it is meant in the context of biodiversity
informatics.

> I would prefer to use terms that have a 
> much narrower range of possible misunderstandings. Taxon name 
> author string, genus species string, 
> genus-species-author-year combination, self explaining terms 
> like these. 

Hmmm....maybe we have a different interpretation of the meaning of the word
"misunderstanding" (or perhaps it's the word "narrower" that we interpret
differently)?  Like I said, if you find these terms more intuitive, and you
are working in a community that feels likewise, then by all means, establish
proper definitions for them.  But be careful!  Certain other subcommunities
within the realm of biodiversity tend to want to acronym-ize everything, so
before you know it, we'll be discussing GSAYCs and GSS's.  Ugh.....

> Don't use expressions for which the reader needs 
> to know the usage history and who are the persons widely 
> considered to be important enough to have the right to define 
> the meaning of such terms.  

Agreed -- which is why I try not to use terms like "name-string" in a forum
like Taxacom, unless I am explicit about how I am using the term.

> Also consider that not every scientist is so firm in English 
> as you are. 

On this issue, I am very-much aware!  As proof of my convictions, when the
ICZN voted on whether the official version of the Code should be represented
in only one language (English), as opposed to the current two official
languages (English and French), I belive I was the only Commissioner who did
not vote "Yes".  Indeed, during the break afterward, Philippe Bouchet (the
French Commissioner who advocated abolishing the French version as co-equal
to the English version in terms of official interpretations of meaning) gave
me a bit of a hard time (in good fun, of course) for not supporting his
cause. 

But in the realm of biodiversity informatics, it seems that English (or,
rather, Computer Geek-speak-influenced English) tends to dominate the oral
and written conversations.  This was not my decision; nor do I think it's
fair.  

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html