Taxacom: Latin

[Douglas Yanega]

On 6/27/23 11:51 PM, Mark D. Scherz via Taxacom wrote:
> It should read ‘in principle, in most cases, if you have a good working
> knowledge of Latin declensions…’. George pointed out that this knowledge is
> not widespread. So far I have only seen numbers on the US here. In the UK,
> less than 3% of students have Latin in school. In Germany, less than 5% and
> declining. And these are countries with long traditions of classics; most
> of the world has less than this. I’d be very interested to know the stats
> on Latin teaching in India and China. The point being, this ability, while
> achievable, is available to a privileged few.
>
> I prefer the up-front investment of time to discuss it here, if it could
> potentially save time in the future.

Then I'll reiterate what I've been advocating:

We (the ICZN) leave the rules in place, but provide two things that 
would *completely eliminate the need for anyone to learn or understand 
Latin or Greek*:

(1) We provide a single official list of all genus names and their 
genders. Contrary to what others here have claimed, we do *already* have 
an essentially complete list of genus names (ambiregnal, not just 
zoology; see the IRMNG), and the genders are known for a substantial 
number of them. Coordinating efforts to get the list "fleshed out" are 
under way. This is pretty readily attainable.

(2) We provide a single official list that explains which species 
epithets are declinable adjectives and which ones are ambiguous. 
Anything not on the list is treated as a noun, and never changes 
spelling. This is a little trickier to organize, but should also be 
attainable. For example, I've personally screened over 200,000 
species-group names, which is over 10% of all zoological names - and 
other researchers have done the same for their groups.

Again, we agree that there is no justification for *compelling* 
taxonomists to learn Latin or Greek, not because gender agreement is an 
outdated practice or unnecessary, but because a taxonomist does not need 
to know Latin or Greek to *look a name up in a list*.

Would you support the implementation of such a system?

Remember, we are aware that people don't like the status quo, and we are 
also aware that completely reverting to original spellings for all names 
is not an option. We want people to consider reasonable alternatives.

Further, the only thing taxonomists are *actually* compelled to do under 
the ICZN is to read the original description in the 8% of cases that are 
ambiguous and fall under Article 31.2.2. Even that 8% may ultimately be 
an overestimate, if we decide to follow the example of the botanists and 
decide that certain ambiguous terms/suffixes are going to be ALWAYS be 
treated arbitrarily as nouns, even when they have some historical usage 
as adjectives (and vice-versa, for certain names that we decide should 
ALWAYS be treated arbitrarily as adjectives, like the epithet "alba"). 
In fact, by creating an official list, we could *potentially* eliminate 
Article 31.2.2 entirely, and have NO ambiguous names, *and* eliminate 
the need to consult original descriptions.

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%7Cbb0cbc3eec754bb52b8608db77e9aab6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638235617697854518%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2fBb1OOJU1CH06nJ%2B0oPypvsgbHJAibWiiPp5kmxcNs%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82