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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

That seems an overstatement. The ICNafp is quite clear
that /Aus albus/ is a name, while the epithet /albus/ by itself
has no status whatsoever. This is not a matter of insight, or viewpoint, 
but of definition.

The zoological /Code/ differs in that although it also defines
/Aus albus/ as a name, but in addition it defines /albus /(by itself) as 
a formal name. This means that the zoological
/Code/ uses adual system of nomenclature that indeed could be explained 
better.
That the zoological /Aus albus/ is a name should be
abundantly clear:
1) various provisions in the zoological /Code/, see for example the 
Glossary entry of "species name".
2) to take Doug's example: it may be true that "striata,
striatus, and striatum are all the same name" but that
does not mean that, say, '/Exempstriatus/', '/Exempstriata/'
and '/Exempstriatum'/ can be used interchangeably. That
is obviously not so: the species name is a separate formal
entity.
3) the world at large needs and expects species names that
are unambiguous units. The idea that a species should be
indicated by a combination of two names appears to be
expressly tailored to make the general public actively
hate and despise zoological nomenclature. This is creating
complexity for the mere sake of making things complex.

That there are zoologists who cannot handle the
zoological dual system of nomenclature and deny that
half of the system even exists is indeed a problem, and
quite a fundamental one. It appears to require a rewrite
of the /Code/ that substantially reduces the ambiguity and makes it 
harder for zoologists to believe in non-/Code/- compliant interpretations.

Paul

On 02/02/2025 13:28, Richard Pyle wrote:
> The reason for the different meaning of "stability" between ICZN Code and ICNafp Code is ultimately because of how the word "name" is generally treated differently between practitioners of the two Codes.
>
> This is not precisely enshrined in the Zoological Code (not sure of the botanical Code), but in my many interactions with both categories of taxonomists, folks in the "afp" camp tend to consider a "name" as the full combination, including precise spelling (hence the tracking of authorships of combinations); whereas many in the "Z" camp think of the "name" as a conceptual object, rather than a precise orthography or combination.
>
> For example, whereas the "afp" folks might see the name "Aus albus" as one name, many of the "Z" folks would see that as two "names" (one in the genus group, and one in the species group).  But the Z folks are a bit inconsistent on this, as the current Code Glossary provides three definitions for the word "name":
>
> "(1) (general) A word, or ordered sequence of words, conventionally used to denote and identify a particular entity (e.g. a person, place, object, concept). (2) Equivalent to scientific name (q.v.). (3) An element of the name of a species-group taxon: see generic name, subgeneric name, specific name, subspecific name."
>
> Number 2 is more or less consistent with the "afp" interpretation, but many (most?) zoologists I know tend to think of it more in the sense of number 3 definition.
>
> But more to the point, I, and I believe many others, measure "stability" in terms of the *conceptual* name, not in terms of any particular combination or orthography.  As Doug explained, "stability" in this sense, means there is an objective set of rules to determine whether the species-group epithet "bus" has nomenclatural priority over the species-group epithet "cus", such that when the name-bearing type of each of these names is deemed taxonomically conspecific, all workers will consistently select the same epithet (also incorporating objective rules for availability).  By contrast, many (admittedly not all) zoologists would not interpret a change in generic classification (e.g., "Aus bus" to "Mus bus"), or a change in orthography ("bus" when combined with a masculine genus, vs. "ba" when combined with a feminine genus or "bum" when combined with a neuter genus) as "nomenclatural instability") as "instability" in the nomenclatural sense.
>
> In other words, from the perspective of many zoologists the "stability" that matters is the conceptual name units and their respective availabilities and priorities, rather than any particular combination (=classification) or orthography (=spelling, specific string of characters).
>
> No doubt some zoologists will disagree with my interpretation above.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Director of EXCORE | Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom<taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Paul van
>> Rijckevorsel via Taxacom
>> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 5:44 AM
>> To:taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Mandatory ending correction after 226 years of wrong
>> usage - the Dasytes case
>>
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>>
>> 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
>>