[Taxacom] Restoring indigenous names

[Richard Zander]

Correct! The present epithets of species that are entirely molecularly based have no intrinsic meaning. They should be changed to the exact sequence of C,A,G,T upon which they are based. This would reflect true, unique meaning. And should be Latinized, of course.  This is completely woke!


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> On Behalf Of Richard Jensen via Taxacom
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:13 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Restoring indigenous names

Why not handle this the way the American Ornithological Union has:  each North American bird species has a binomial based on the rules of nomenclature; each species also has an approved common name, based on other criteria, but treated separately from the binomial.  The approved common names could be, relatively easily I presume, changed to reflect names used by indigenous peoples without having any effect on the binomial.

Further, "a name is not just a name".  Species names have intrinsic meaning and are not the same as proper names as used in various languages.  Proper names, e.g., John Doe, Mount McKinley, have no intrinsic meaning, are not unique and can be changed without recourse to a defined set of guiding principles.  Species names are unique (at least within the code that
applies) and changing them  requires adherence to the currently accepted nomenclatural principles.

Cheers,

Dick