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

[Mary Barkworth]

I do not see the logic in suggesting the need for a biological code because one code is a nightmare. When Taxacom gets bogged down in long (?endless) discussions are about the Zoological Code, I give thanks I am interested in plants, not animals.  The discussions convince me of the value of having a code that people accept even if they dislike parts of it.
Mary

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:36 AM
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>; Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: demystifying gender agreement ( was Re: Removals ofoffending scientific names)

One point to make about this entire discussion is that it seems to be zoologically hijacked! Very little about the botanical code (or whatever you want to call it). Perhaps it really is time for a unified code of biological nomenclature?
Stephen
    On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 01:32:36 am NZST, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

 Thank you Alberto for this well presented consideration on some
previously expressed arguments against gender agreement.

I can agree with some of those points, but not all arguments have been
mentioned. I generally observed that not all arguments in this debate
have been presented in a balanced way.

1) Are Latin rules complicated? Basically they are not very complicated,
I ca agree with that, as well as Chinese language and script is not
complicated either. Very young children are able to learn Chinese, so
for the western world all could learn to speak and write Chinese, too,
and then the world would speak one single language. Not being
complicated is probably not suffient as an argument why people should or
are willing learn something. They would ask a question: yes it is not
complicated to learn it, but why should we learn it? Is there a benefit?

Being a moderately skilled taxonomist myself, I am personally able to
determine off hand the correct endings of 90 % of molluscan names. In 10
% I need to research until I get the correct result. I am a taxonomist
and, as George has brought forward, I do not like this kind of
linguistic research very much, also because I think it is useless, and
so I tend to skip such researches and rely on previous authors having
done this.
Myself not being the only one to approach the issue in this way, many
molluscan names have remained in incorrect declinations for a long time.

I analysed this issue in 2012 in my own taxonomic field.
42 % of 2500 species-group names in European non-marine molluscs were
declinable adjectives.
In 2100 species, some 200 species had been transferred in the past to a
genus with a different gender and their ending was changed correctly. In
another 50 cases the ending was changed incorrectly. Malacologists
applied the gender agreement correctly in 80 % of the cases.

This may give an idea to judge the meaning of the term "complicated". If
80 % of the cases are solved correctly and 20 % not, is it complicated?
I would not use that term at all. I would just watch the result. We are
living in an experienced world and do not need to speculate.

2) I do not have the feeling that the desire to abandon gender agreement
is so strictly correlated with the person's language. I have often
registered views from English natives who reported that they had no
problem with the application of gender agreement, and native speakers of
languages with gender agreement who opted for changing the current
rules. Would be interesting to ask the community for their preference in
a way Frank has proposed it, and in such a survey ask the participants
for their own native language. Then we could see whether there is a
correlation or not, and take the appropriate conclusions.

3) Latin as a dead language. One of the effects is that only few
biologists have learned Latin in school. Knowledge of Latin is not
necessary for applying the gender agreement in zoology. You only need to
know the rules for the endings of adjectives and how to apply them. This
is only a very small portion of Latin grammar. Telling a machine to do
the gender agreement is quite easy, the machine does not need to know
Latin either.

4) Changing a name or an ending of a name does complicate things. Search
functions in some data resources are able to search tolerantly, in
others not. Google search is the best example for a character sensitive
search funtion: you get different results if you search for species
names with variant endings. The dead language problem pops up again
here: Latin is utterly unimportant for the world outside, otherwise
Google would long have been programmed in a way that would have solved
the problems of variant endings. I took Google search only as one
example, there are many scientific resources of the same kind.

Linnaeus did not have a good idea to invent a binominal system for the
species names. When a species is placed into a different genus the name
of the species will change. People will have to look for two names in
the electronic sources when they intend to look for information about
this species. Linnaeus did invent the binominal nomenclature to improve
international (interlingual) scientific communication and to provide
only one single name for each species (before 1750 no universally
accepted names existed for the animals and plants), but initially he was
probably not aware that transferring a species from one genus to another
genus would have the contrary effect.

So Alberto's argument is certainly true: Taxonomists are used to the
situation that a species may change its name. And I also agree with that
it should not be a problem that during such a change also the ending of
the specific name may change. After the new generic placement the number
of names that you need to know for finding information on such a species
is two: Elaphe longissima, Zamenis longissimus. It would equally be two
if the new name would be Zamenis longissima.
But.
Not all cases are so easy. If some taxonomists suddenly discover that
the long accustomed name Zamenis longissimus was incorrectly declined
for all the time in the past and should correctly read Zamenis
longissima, then we may ask: Is it really necessary to change that? What
is the benefit? Supercedes the benefit (a good feeling because Latin
grammar is applied correctly) the shortcomings (a third name to be
researched when trying to find all published information on this
species, database entries have to be changed)?

Some other arguments brought forward in the debate:

5) Switching back to the original spelling would have the effect that
the number of names that would have to change would be high. In molluscs
12 % of endings would have to switch once again.

6) A more balanced view on the restricted Code rule application in
Lepidoptera would be desired. I am missing a neutral scientific approach.
Just arguing that the lepidopterists do not respect the Code looks to me
somehow unfair because they do apply their rules since 1758, as well as
the others apply their rules since 1758. I am a Commissioner, I am not a
lepidopterist, so I have to look very closely and in a differentiated
manner on such an issue. I have to find an answer to the question "why?".
Linnaeus himself was the one who decided that lepidopteran names would
follow a different treatment than the other animal names. Linnaeus did
not use declineable adjectives in any of the 500 butterfly species-group
names he established. No colleage needed to decline lepidopteran names,
no lepidopterist needed to learn gender agreement, later this was
maintained. So there is a long history behind.
The written nomenclatural rules evolved slowly in a long process, and it
was simply overlooked that the lepidopteran nomenclature followed a
different unwritten regulation since 1758. The system works
successfully, so I tend to respect it.
Alternatively, suddenly starting to apply gender agreement, they would
have to check the endings of some 100,000 names for beind declineable or
not, they would probably find that some 65,000 names are declineable,
then they would have to change the endings of some 20,000 names.
The impact in lepidopterology would be of the same order of magnitude as
if the others would have to switch to the original spelling (item 5).

7) The waste of time argument was not mentioned by Alberto. Skilled
taxonomists need to spend time on something that does not contribute to
the knowledge and protection of nature.

Best wishes
Francisco


Am 27.06.2023 um 09:44 schrieb alberto ballerio via Taxacom:
>  I have followed the discussion with some dismay since the majority of the arguments against gender agreement (or, sometimes, more generally against Latin) are too whimsical to be accepted.
> To sum up, I see three rethorical/whimsical (and quite unpresentable in my opinion) arguments and one pratical.
> The rethorical arguments are:
> 1) Latin gender agreement rules are complicated and there are a few exceptions in the rules which furtherly complicate things. My answer is: in taxonomy there are a lot of complicate things, some strictly necessary some others less necessary, but every taxonomists diligently accepts them. So, why not gender agreement? The intellectual effort needed for becoming familiar with the idea of gender agreement is minimal and the Latin rules about it required fin zooloigcal nomenclature are minimal. Furthermore, do we have evidence that people coming from cultures which had nothing to do with Latin (and/or with gender agreement), such as China and Japan, is totally unable to use Latin (and/or gender agreement)? As far as I can see they deal with Latin in an excellent way. And for those who do not like adjectives there is always the option to choose a noun or a genitive (..or, are also Latin genitive suffixes such as -i, -ae, another unaccetable thing for you?).
> 2) "My native language does not know gender agreement therefore the whole world must adapt to this". This is a very unpresentable argument (and very immodest) and, as far as I can see, the most widespread. Then I suppose that the day some of you decide to learn Italian, French, Spanish, German or any other language having gender agreement rules, then you will ask their governments to abolish such an outdated habit because you feel not at ease with it....
> 3) Latin is a dead language, outdated and old fashioned. De facto  Latin is however the language with which the majority of the 2 millions (?) existing scientific names have been crafted, being Latin or latinized. So, a basic knowledge of Latin (and some Ancient Greek) remains a necessary tool for a taxonomist in order to deal with what has been done up to now and to understand the past of taxonomy. The existing names are also likely to represent the most common and widespread living organims on this planet and therefore these existing names are likely the ones destined to be used more often. Of course it is possible to discuss anything about the future of zoological nomenclature, even to abandon Latin and to switch to vernacular names or to English, but I don't see any particular advantage in doing this.
> The practical argument is:
> 4) names are labels, and, above all, are treated as such by databases and computers, therefore any change in a name will complicate things for a computer or anybody managing a database. Change is, however, a trademark of taxonomy. Names and binomina continuously change because of some taxonomic facts (e.g., new combinations, splitting and lumping of taxa), nomenclatural rules (discovery of homonimies, gender agreement, corrections of spellings)  and nomenclatural-taxonomic events (i.e., taxonomic decisions which need to follow a nomenclatural rule, i.e., the principle of prioriry, as in the case of synonymizations). A guy who 40 years ago had learnt about the existence of a snake called Elaphe longissima will be somewhat confused with the current name Zamenis longissimus and leaving it as Zamenis longissima would not represent a big help to him for reconciling the two binomina. So, anybody dealing with taxonomy needs to have some knowledge of the rules of taxonomy and nomenclature, gender agreement is one of them. And, if, currently, computers are unable to deal with it, let's change computers and, please, do not adapt our mind to the limits of a machine.
> To sum up: Being not afraid of Latin is a requisite for becoming a taxonomist, like being not afraid of blood is a must if you want to become a doctor! If you have a thing against Latin, then why are you a taxonomist? There are other branches of natural history, such as ecology or ethology you could consider and where you will become a simple user of scientific names (and in some case you could even use only vernacular names!) without the need to understand them and the rules behind them.
> Best regards,
> Alberto
>
>
>      Il martedì 27 giugno 2023 alle ore 05:11:58 CEST, Frank T. Krell via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ha scritto:
>
>  We (ICZN) are talking about how to organize straw votes on major issues, such as gender agreement, involving as much of the global interested zoological community as possible. I think that consulting the community is crucial with such contentions issues as gender agreement or mandatory registration. My term with the ICZN ends next year, but I will try to push this as long as I can.
> Cheers
>
> Frank
>
>
> Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell
>
> Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
> Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
> Department of Zoology
> Denver Museum of Nature & Science
> 2001 Colorado Blvd
> Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
> Frank.krell at dmns.org
> Phone 303.370.8244
> Fax 303.331.6492
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fzoology%2Fstaff%2Ffrank-krell%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857234103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fWe8TICsNMHk2OBVUuI9ZJitA6ay%2BN%2BFd6dUvdpyS20%3D&reserved=0
>
> Bugs: They're bigger, they're better, they're buggier than ever! It's all about precision flight, swarm intelligence and mind control in the world of "Bugs," the exhibition. Marvel at their adaptive genius and see if you can match their brilliance.
>
>
> Bugs: Son más grandes, mejores y más increíbles que nunca. En la exhibición "Bugs" todo gira en torno al vuelo de precisión, la inteligencia en grupo y el control mental. ¡Descubre lo genios que son!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of George Beccaloni via Taxacom
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 11:10 AM
> To: Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: demystifying gender agreement ( was Re: Removals ofoffending scientific names)
>
> Hopefully the ICZN isn't a dictatorship... If not, perhaps it should consult taxonomists worldwide and give them a vote about continuing or abandoning gender agreement.
>
> George
>
> ****************************************************************************
> *Dr George Beccaloni FLS*
> *Director, Alfred Russel Wallace Correspondence Project*
>
> Wallace Correspondence Project: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceletters.myspecies.info%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857234103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q9WVGm%2FzUWCVT%2FYDioSxmNRBHdMaFcFitBiT%2BiZu5M0%3D&reserved=0
> Wallace Memorial Fund: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwallacefund.myspecies.info%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857234103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dNJn0rYdq%2Fw%2BPQIjeXvZyx66f%2Bwx3UgIKbYK7d84Wj0%3D&reserved=0
> ResearchGate: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FGeorge-Beccaloni-2&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857234103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qBA6LctEo%2FSwY5AwVJPByjS7ys7KKPHu7nQRTcROuJg%3D&reserved=0
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:02, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom < taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/23 2:53 AM, Geoff Read via Taxacom wrote:
>>> As a database editor I can have great difficulty in ascertaining the
>> gender of a genus, because it isn't stated, and the derivation of the
>> name is obscure and unresolvable.
>>> Sometimes the view of the gender assignment oscillates between
>>> masculine
>> and feminine with successive authors over the decades. Who is right?
>>> The other unnecessary problem is that authors don't think it
>>> necessary
>> to explain themselves when they suddenly change the gender endings
>> within a genus. It's beneath them to help out in that way.
>>> So, lacking the explanation, we try to find the evidence for ourselves.
>> This is a terrific waste of my time.
>>
>> I agree, it IS a waste of your time.
>>
>> If there was a single list to consult that told you *instantly and
>> definitively* what gender any given genus is, and another list that
>> told you whether or not an epithet is subject to changes in spelling
>> (and what those changes are), do you think that this would resolve
>> this particular issue?
>>
>> Don't give in to the Dark Side.
>>
>> 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%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857234103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yOvbcX1vuZ7sCZ%2FRXS%2FxiY%2F1LWmA%2B6wbtJtXLlUhSZo%3D&reserved=0
>>      "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>>            is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
>> for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
_______________________________________________
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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.

_______________________________________________
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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbc7e430b661e4820da9a08db77675149%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235057857390774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rE5ZOlpjd9CNjX0TN7YZ0%2FFQFzeLYuPSHSZrOHymeqo%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.