[Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

[Stephen Thorpe]

Putting aside for a moment the email I was writing to you, as this one deserves a rapid response:
> It's as if you were claiming that species are real entities in nature
Where the HECK do you get that from???? Maybe I'm writing in Kiwi and you are reading my words in Hawaiian, or something!!! That simply could not be FURTHER from the truth!
I am claiming that species NAMES (as in Examplus primus Smith, 1970) are linguistic/legalistic entities as defined by the Code! In much the same way that my name, Stephen Thorpe, is a linguistic/legalistic entity, and you can't take it apart without losing something - not something in nature, but a certain linguistic structure (i.e., family name comes second after a space). Comprehende???
________________________________________
From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2009 8:12 p.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; jim.croft at gmail.com
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

Sorry Stephen, I can't let some of these quotes go unchallenged.  I try to
resist -- I try to keep my fingers off my keyboard -- but I can't.  It's as
if you were claiming that species are real entities in nature.  I just
*can't* simply ignore it!

:-)

> Most databases/publications in the
> world today would have a single field called 'Name', which
> would look like this:
>
> Name: Examplus primus Smith, 1970
>
> NOT like this:
>
> Name: Examplus primus
> Authority: Smith
> Date: 1970

I would agree with your statement with one small modifcation: insert the
words "poorly designed" between "Most" and "databases" in the first
sentence.

Aloha,
Rich