Taxacom: Mandatory ending correction after 226 years of wrong usage - the Dasytes case

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

On 29/01/2025 23:44, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
>
> [...] Second, you seem to be using a different definition of
> stability than what the Code uses. [...] 
> Instability is *when taxonomists disagree* on what 
> name/spelling/variant to use. The Code's concept of 
> stability/instability is more akin to the dichotomy 
> between consensus and dispute, and not the sense of 
> "never changing". Names can change a LOT without 
> creating instability, as long as all taxonomists adopt 
> the changes.
***
If the zoological /Code/ were to mean this by "instability" this
would represent an extremely unfortunate choice of words,
quite unnecessary because there is no lack of words which
would avoid this ambiguity.

Also, it would be quite counter to the spirit of a /Code/ of
nomenclature, in general. The purpose of a /Code/ is to govern
names (directly), and thereby promote consensus among users
(that is, indirectly). Not the other way round.

It is also contradicted by Principle 4: "... would be destructive
of stability or universality ..." which clearly accepts stability
and universality as two separate concepts.

FWIW, under the 'botanical' Code, it is not at all uncommon
to conserve generic names with a particular gender, so as to
avoid changes in endings of epithets.

Paul