Taxacom: demystifying gender agreement ( was Re: Removals of offending scientific names)

[Douglas Yanega]

On 6/23/23 7:39 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> By keeping things simple I was only referring to the specific 
> question, not to solve nomenclatural issues in general. As for a 
> single master list, that is fine, if 'everyone' could agree on that. 
> But human nature being what it is, I doubt any such list will have 
> absolute hegemony. Happy to be wrong, but I doubt it will happen in my 
> lifetime.

Actually, there are a large number of groups for which we already have a 
central authoritative list of names. That ranges from a majority of 
vertebrates down to rotifers, and all sorts of things in between, 
especially among the insects.

There is, for example, a set of "Species Files", alluded to by George 
Beccaloni, and those are all *very* close to the model that I've been 
talking about. They cover Aphididae, Blattodea, Coleorrhyncha, 
Coreoidea, Dermaptera, Embioptera, Lygaeoidea, Mantodea, Orthoptera, 
Phasmida, Plecoptera, and Psocodea.

Other authoritative lists managed by individuals exist for Diptera, 
Mecoptera, Neuroptera, Odonata, bees, ants, sphecoid wasps, scale 
insects, Cerambycidae, Auchenorrhyncha, Chalcidoidea, Ichneumonoidea, 
and several more.

If there is no single list yet for Lepidoptera, then this is a 
surprising exception within the Insecta. I am less familiar with such 
resources for arachnids, crustaceans, or molluscs, but I expect they 
also exist.

The point is, we are far closer than you might imagine to having single 
centralized lists for all described taxa, and taxonomists in MANY 
disciplines are *already* used to going to a single resource to look up 
names. If those single resources added the functionality of listing 
genders of genera (according to the Code, not according to "tradition"), 
and indicating which epithets are declinable adjectives (according to 
the Code, not according to "tradition"), then that would largely 
accomplish the purpose I've outlined during this discussion. At least 
one of these lists already HAS those functionalities, so the "proof of 
concept" is already established.

I will add, to reinforce the point, that a few of these taxa have 
multiple lists in existence, and *every* time there are multiple lists 
that overlap in content, they contain a small but significant number of 
discrepancies between them. That also demonstrates the NEED for there to 
be single lists, as well as the NEED for them to be built by genuine 
consensus of relevant taxonomists, as is done by the Code's LAN 
mechanism; lists built by single individuals will never be as 
authoritative - or promote stability as effectively - as lists built 
through consultation and *permanently resolved debate*.

It doesn't take an AI to do something simple like informing you that the 
spelling of an adjective has to change if you move a species from, say, 
the genus Flataloides (feminine) to Flatoides (masculine) or vice-versa. 
The part that isn't simple is recognizing that Flataloides and Flatoides 
are different genders in the first place (despite the latter being 
treated as feminine "by tradition"), and *building that into the master 
list*. The idea is to get the lists built, and built only once 
(thereafter not subject to revision).

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce591a0034a404ebf905d08db765ea8d3%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638233921148435410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Q5dr5zM%2FiWujiokkBBDIs2wPOy28w75HgK7ocOTx4U%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82