Taxacom: Taxacom Digest, Vol 189, Issue 17

[John Grehan]

Thanks for that historical summary  Francisco.

John Grehan

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:30 AM Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
wrote:

> As far as I know, the approaches were always in the direction to abandon
> gender agreement for all animals, to facilitate nomenclature for all
> zoologists. Such proposals were declined various times, in Code-3 and
> Code-4.
>
> The introduction to Code-3 has a short statement to summarize the debate
> in 1985:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fitem%2F107166%23page%2F23%2Fmode%2F1up&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=eTRkrzsZT140uJFBq%2Fv3B3PWwcn9S1%2BZekVz4ZJdqqQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> The Code-4 introduction has a statement on p. XXVI. They explained that
> the majority of users expressed the desire not to change the existing
> rules.
>
> I also have the feeling that the special history had not been known or
> understood. For understanding what happened it is necessary to compare
> all the names established by Linnaeus. It takes long to check all the
> hundreds of Linnean Papilio names, many ending in -a or -us, and finally
> come to the conclusion that they are all nouns and not a single name is
> declinable. A lepidopterist would probably not be skilled enough to do
> that (lepidopterists did not need to learn to apply gender agreement and
> to differentiate between nouns and adjectives), and others would
> probably not be interested in it.
> The usual consideration has been "lepidopterists do not accept the
> rules". The view that they did follow relatively well balanced rules is
> also relatively new.
>
> We also would have to acknowledge that gender agreement seems to be
> applied in certain subgroups of Lepidoptera. As said, Linneaus did
> propose declinable specific names for moths. Traditions based on this
> line, to always change the ending, could have survived. I am not deep
> enough in the field to judge this reliably. The same thought of
> maintaining stability would apply here.
> This suggests that the best solution could probably be not to talk of
> "Lepidoptera" in the Code, but to develop some general solution that
> covers both.
>
> -----
> Francisco
>
> Am 27.01.2022 um 15:51 schrieb John Grehan:
> > I am curious, and hopefully someone will know, as to why the general code
> > was not amended in some way along the lines of an exemption for
> Lepidoptera
> > if so many favored the original name ending? Surely some or other did
> raise
> > the issue? And if so, what was the nature of opposition. Even for an
> > 'exception' I would not see this as being desirable to necessarily
> exclude
> > the option for modification. This gets to be a bit like trying to decide
> on
> > a single best way to boil an egg.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:28 AM Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of gender agreement in Lepidoptera, Code compliance leads to
> >> instability. Nieukerken et al. (2019) have explained that. This is a
> >> problem we have to solve.
> >> Changing the ending in a specific name creates a new string of letters,
> >> not a new name under the Code, but a new name for most search engines in
> >> the electronic age. This provides obstacles to communication and may
> >> also have consequences for conservation. Proposing to change the
> >> accustomed ending of a specific name for nomenclatural reasons without a
> >> taxonomic need should be avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> As scientists we are used to differentiate, and we are also used to
> >> general rules having exceptions. Not everything can be forced into a
> >> black and white frame.
> >>
> >> We have two options to maintain stability. Either we incorporate to the
> >> Code a special regulation for Lepidoptera, as Linneaus has proposed
> >> indirectly in 1758 (*). Or we find a regulation that applies to all
> >> names of all animal groups, and has the effect that the tradition in
> >> lepidopteran nomenclature can be maintained as they have it, and that at
> >> the same time the accustomed procedures in the other animal groups are
> >> not affected.
> >> Both approaches would have the same result: stability could be
> maintained.
> >>
> >> (*) Linnaeus did not establish written rules, but applied unwritten
> >> rules that were later converted into written rules. One such rule, and
> >> this was overlooked for centuries, was that specific names of
> >> butterflies are not declined, in contrast to the specific names of all
> >> other animals.
> >> The next two steps in the history were those:
> >> 1. Some subsequent authors violated this unwritten rule and began to
> >> propose declinable names in the butterfly genus Papilio, either with
> >> masculine or with feminine ending, depending on their personal
> >> preference (the gender of Papilio was disputed). Most butterfly
> >> taxonomists did not decline those in the future, also because they did
> >> not like to get involved in the dispute. Otherwise they would
> >> permanently have switched between masculine and feminine endings. This
> >> tradition - leaving endings as they are - was well justified from this
> >> point of view, and probably the best solution.
> >> 2. Some taxonomists expanded this unwritten rule to moths (genera Sphinx
> >> and Phalaena) and began not declining specific moth names. I would not
> >> regard that as justified, but it could perhaps be driven by practical
> >> considerations.
> >>
> >> Zoological nomenclature is based on a legacy. If we intend to understand
> >> the presence and to develop the future we should not overlook to
> >> consider the history.
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Francisco
> >>
> >> Am 27.01.2022 um 08:10 schrieb Milen Marinov via Taxacom:
> >>>    Thanks for sharing Nieukerken et al. (2019), Martin! I read it a
> >> growing concern because the authors make some statements which in my
> >> opinion are wrong and generally the whole text is encouraging a wrong
> >> doing. The authors do not specify what they understand by name changes,
> but
> >> I guess they are talking about new combinations, modifying the
> spellings,
> >> etc. Generally speaking once introduced a scientific name does not
> change
> >> or if there is a need to change a nomen given to a taxon, this has to
> >> happen with a nomenclature act. Nomenclatural correctness is just one
> step
> >> of a nomenclature process. Correcting the spelling (if it happens after
> the
> >> initial introduction of the nomen) to be Code compliant with THE RULES
> is
> >> not creating a new name. It is a modification of an existing scientific
> >> name. Therefore, such modification don’t lead to new nomina and the
> >> “stability” which the authors are advocating is still there.
> >>> In my opinion not adhering to the rules in the Code creates more
> >> instability because such behaviour encourages other people not to
> consider
> >> the Code as legislation, but a document with recommendations which may
> be
> >> followed or ignored if already have been ignored by many people. Wrong
> >> doing is wrong doing regardless of how many times somebody has done it.
> >>> There are two pathways in zoological nomenclature – Code compliant
> >> (correct) and Code ignorant (incorrect). I don’t like the second way
> even
> >> if this has been favoured by millions of taxonomists.
> >>> I put millions intentionally because that's what I want to see in
> >> zootaxonomy - millions of people making a career in this science.
> >> Unfortunately this is not what we see these days and here the paper
> makes a
> >> short reference to a major problem - people working in taxonomy often
> lack
> >> training in this science because this subject is not widely taught at
> the
> >> universities. Yes, it is difficult if taxonomists don't speak Latin or
> >> Greek, but a difficulty shouldn't stop them from trying to be compliant
> >> with the rules.
> >>> Regards,Milen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>       On Thursday, 27 January 2022, 07:00:10 am NZDT, <
> >> taxacom-request at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>
> >>> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> >> your reply.
> >>> ____________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>>     1. Gender agreement in Lepidoptera (Martin Wiemers)
> >>>     2. Re: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Biston betularia moth names
> >>>         (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
> >>>     3. Re: Gender agreement in Lepidoptera (John Grehan)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:29:12 +0100
> >>> From: Martin Wiemers <martin.wiemers at univie.ac.at>
> >>> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >>> Subject: Taxacom: Gender agreement in Lepidoptera
> >>> Message-ID: <04888de7-1238-7f91-281d-e14c35ac1986 at univie.ac.at>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >>>
> >>> To John & those of you who are interested in the issue of gender
> >>> agreement in Lepidoptera, here is a recent article on the subject
> (which
> >>> advocates NOT to apply gender agreement in Lepidoptera):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.3897%2Fnl.42.34187&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=OpYOOGm8BZ8ypFQ0HqUjOZgpuZJwPBnLu9ImcDjVWTk%3D&reserved=0
> >> (open access)
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes, Martin
> >>>
> >>> Am 25.01.2022 um 18:51 schrieb John Grehan via Taxacom:
> >>>> In general I can't say whether it's laziness or stupidity (although
> >> perhaps
> >>>> both apply to me :). But in Lepidoptera there has been an
> >>>> apparent widespread (if not total) consensus not to look for gender
> >>>> agreement. What I have heard (including from a linguist) is that some
> >>>> generic names are of unknown gender while others are ambiguous. So I
> >> guess
> >>>> with these problems in mind, many (most? all?) lepidopterists have
> >> chosen
> >>>> stability over a linguist requirement that cannot always be met. In my
> >> case
> >>>> I am clueless about Latin so it would be a minefield. But in 2000 the
> >>>> lepidopterists Ebbe Schmidt Nielsen, Gaden Robertsnon, and David
> Wagner
> >>>> generated a global list of Hepialidae for which gender agreement, for
> >>>> species reallocated to different genera from the original, was not
> >> followed
> >>>> or attempted. A new World list of Hepialidae (in press) also follows
> >> this
> >>>> same practice. My view is that this is just a case of an arbitrary
> >> choice
> >>>> - either one prefers to follow gender agreement (even if this is not
> >> always
> >>>> an obvious determination) as in the current code, or one does not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers, John Grehan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:01 PM lynn <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What exactly is the problem with gender agreement? Lazy taxonomists?
> >>>>> Stupid taxonomists incapable of following rules? Surely not! So what
> >> is it
> >>>>> that needs fixing and why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lynn
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 25 Jan 2022, at 17:09, Robert Zuparko via Taxacom <
> >>>>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>> ?I'm with John on this. To quote Shakespeare:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Oh, to deep-six the need for gender agreement! How much sweeter
> might
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> world be?"
> >>>>>> I'm not sure which play this was from - maybe one of the Henrys? Or
> >>>>> maybe a
> >>>>>> sonnet?.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Bob Zuparko
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:01 AM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> >>>>>>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A colleague sent me a copy of the following:
> >>>>>>> Cook, L.M. & Muggleton, J. 2003. The peppered moth, Biston
> betularia
> >>>>>>> (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): a matter of names. The
> >>>>>>> Entomologist's Gazette 54: 211-221.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Below is an excerpt of the conclusion section concerning gender
> >>>>> agreement.
> >>>>>>> This is from a few years back, so nothing particularly new here.
> >> Gender
> >>>>>>> agreement is the one aspect of the Code that I have not followed in
> >> my
> >>>>>>> group of study (Hepialidae) - with only one exception to my
> >> recollection
> >>>>>>> where a gender agreement form is well established as the accepted
> >> name
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> New Zealand. This decision followed that of Ebbe Schmidt Nielsen
> >> (2000)
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> the group, and to avoid the nightmare of trying to establish a
> >>>>> consistency
> >>>>>>> of names where the gender of some genera is unknown or ambiguous,
> and
> >>>>>>> especially where I was involved in a substantial number of generic
> >>>>>>> reassignments of species. I don't know if this paper is open
> access,
> >>>>> but if
> >>>>>>> not and anyone wants a copy just let me know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers, John Grehan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Regulation does, however, bring its own problems. The intention of
> >> the
> >>>>>>> Code
> >>>>>>> of Zoological Nomenclature is admirable. It is essential to have
> >> such a
> >>>>>>> system in
> >>>>>>> taxonomy if we are to be able to refer precisely to a particular
> >>>>> species.
> >>>>>>> When
> >>>>>>> many species are considered in taxonomic works, the Code must be
> >>>>> adhered to
> >>>>>>> exactly. In a group such as the British Macrolepidoptera, however,
> >> there
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> almost no difficult taxonomic questions, and nearly all species
> have
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>> known
> >>>>>>> common names. Nevertheless, for various bookkeeping reasons their
> >>>>>>> scientific
> >>>>>>> names are continually changing, sometimes as fast as the species
> >>>>> themselves
> >>>>>>> are evolving. Thus, Gonodontis bidentata (Clerck, 1759) showed a
> >>>>>>> distinctive pattern of melanism across north-west England in the
> >> 1970s
> >>>>>>> (Bishop et al., 1978), now changing in Odontopera bidentata (Cook
> et
> >>>>> al.,
> >>>>>>> 2002). Lees (1971) established the distribution of melanism in
> >> Britain
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> Phigalia pedaria (Fabricius) in the late 1960s. Studies of this
> >> species,
> >>>>>>> under the name Phigalia pilosaria ([Denis & Schiffermiiller]),
> 1775)
> >>>>> showed
> >>>>>>> that it did not much alter in the Midlands over the next decade
> >> (Lees,
> >>>>>>> 1981) but Apocheima pilosaria is now showing a definite decline in
> >>>>> melanic
> >>>>>>> frequency (Cook, Riley & Woiwod, 2002). The example of the Peppered
> >> Moth
> >>>>>>> illustrates well the fact that agreement in gender performs no
> useful
> >>>>>>> function in a world where the genus names regularly change.
> >> Moreover, it
> >>>>>>> may generate arcane problems that are of no relevance to biology.
> >>>>>>> If Treitschke had intended Amphidasys when he named the genus, but
> >>>>> misspelt
> >>>>>>> it, it would have been masculine. If the version he used was a
> >>>>>>> deliberate latinization, however, it becomes feminine. The
> >> difference in
> >>>>>>> treatment by Staudinger in the two references quoted suggests that
> he
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>>> conscious of this problem. We have no way, and no reason, to know
> >> what
> >>>>>>> Treitschke thought and in a multilingual world that does not
> presume
> >>>>>>> knowledge of Latin and classical Greek it is time to let the rule
> on
> >>>>>>> agreement go. There are hundreds of papers on melanism in the
> >> Peppered
> >>>>>>> Moth, its frequency about the country, its progressive change and
> its
> >>>>>>> genetics. Nomenclatural usage in them, in Britain at any rate, has
> >> its
> >>>>>>> origin in Ford (1937). Despite the manifest incorrectness of
> >> betularia
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> the oddity of choosing carbonaria, we suggest that these two names
> >>>>> should
> >>>>>>> continue in use for this particular body of literature."
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >>>>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >>>>>>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> >>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >>>>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >>>>>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=78gpOzrc2XsuuQov%2Fd%2BPr6yrG5QccydEN9%2FCSBsEpjg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
> >>>>> 1987-2022.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Robert Zuparko
> >>>>>> Essig Museum of Entomology
> >>>>>> 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, #4780
> >>>>>> University of California
> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
> >>>>>> (510) 643-0804
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not a fetish. When a scientist does it, it's an "area of
> >> interest."
> >>>>> Ze
> >>>>>> Frank, True Facts
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >>>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >>>>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> >>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >>>>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >>>>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=78gpOzrc2XsuuQov%2Fd%2BPr6yrG5QccydEN9%2FCSBsEpjg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
> >> 1987-2022.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>>
> >>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jcxLCYcjKpamu11qFN4NH9VrM2sP2CpZFNsmL2wUiog%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
> >> 1987-2022.
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C17104c0d860a47ddb69208d9e1acd7d5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637788955808245513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jcxLCYcjKpamu11qFN4NH9VrM2sP2CpZFNsmL2wUiog%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
> 1987-2022.
> >>
> >
>