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

[Richard Pyle]

Sorry -- it's an inside joke to long-time Taxacomers, who know that I simply
cannot resist commenting whenever the issue of real vs. artificial species
comes up.  It was actually a self-effacing comment; not in any way directed
at you, and it was completely unrelated to the current thread.  I was merely
trying to capture the struggle that I was having trying (desperately) to
keep my fingers away from the keyboard.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:20 PM
> To: Richard Pyle; 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
> 
> 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=