[Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name

[Stephen Thorpe]

>however it still remains to decide which is the “preferred” or “primary” name to 
>use for redirects and display purposes etc. (hence my original question in 
>fact…)

but surely that is of little importance ... if there seems to be some sort of 
"prevailing usage" then go with that, but if not, just make an arbitrary 
decision ..

the point of the Wikispecies approach is that if someone types either form of 
the name into the search box, then they end up on the same page

I chose to go with the original spelling as the "primary" name, which may be 
sensible




________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; gread at actrix.gen.nz; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 23 December, 2010 2:13:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name


Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 
> you could always handle it like I have, Tony, using the concept of uncertainty
> rather than plurality:
> http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pericelidae
 
 
Indeed, that is sensible and probably desirable in such cases, however it still 
remains to decide which is the “preferred” or “primary” name to use for 
redirects and display purposes etc. (hence my original question in fact…)
 
Regards - Tony
 

________________________________

From:Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 December 2010 3:09 PM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); gread at actrix.gen.nz ; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name
 
you could always handle it like I have, Tony, using the concept of uncertainty 
rather than plurality:
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pericelidae
 
Stephen
 

________________________________

From:"Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: gread at actrix.gen.nz ; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 22 December, 2010 5:02:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name

Hi Geoff,

Well, I thought the magic bullet might be a little quicker than the discussion 
to date - but maybe not... the ICZN/Code bye-line is "standards, sense, and 
stability for animal names in science" which is what I was (optimistically?) 
hoping for in this instance...

On your other point - I do indeed have a data system that accommodates both 
endings, however as presently designed (and most likely in common with other 
similar systems), it incorporates the concept of only one being "correct" / 
valid / current at any one time, with any others for the same taxon being 
synonyms or otherwise non-current versions. Designing a system to cope with 
multiple current scientific names for any taxon would be a separate exercise and 
against the intentions of the Code, surely?

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:22 PM
> To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name
> 
> Tony,
> 
> The magic bullet? After a day of debate? Could we agree that probably it
> is don't waste your time on such code fluff?
> 
> Have a system that accommodates both versions and cross references them.
> Wait for someone to tell you if you've got anything wrong & why. Move on
> meantime.
> 
> We have a couple of busybody-initiated 'improved endings' families with
> extra syllables in the polychaetes. Prevailing usage has adopted them
> sometime before I was on the scene, but still those less cool than the
> rest of us will use the passe short versions.
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> Tony Rees wrote:
> 
> "Suggestions, authoritative or not would be welcome as to which name would
> be more appropriate to follow at this time - at present my preference
> would be for the longer form since that appears to be used in arguably
> more authoritative sources, but I am open to other evidence. For example
> in Zoological Record, a search on "Pericelidae" yields one hit only, but
> Pericelididae yields none...  Pericelidae has 13 hits on Google scholar,
> Pericelididae has 3.
> 
> Does anyone have a magic bullet here, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here