Re: Stability of WG2

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 18:27:46 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Case mapping of dotless lowercase letters"

    On 16/12/2003 13:05, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:

    >Peter Kirk scripsit:
    >
    >
    >
    >>On 16/12/2003 09:41, Curtis Clark wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>A measure of comparison is the system of biological nomenclature, ...
    >>>(not to mention the periodic and sometimes raucous conventions when
    >>>the rules are modified).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Probably the secret of its success is the existence of such conventions.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >*chuckle*
    >
    >The first use of "conventions" above means "meetings"; the second means
    >"rules". Result: a non-meeting of the minds.
    >
    >
    >
    Not so! I intended "such conventions" as an explicit reference to the
    meetings which Curtis described, although I was also aware of the double
    meaning and deliberately didn't cancel it.

    >>If biologists had insisted that names once assigned could not be changed
    >>because of advances in knowledge, or even to correct errors, then surely
    >>the system would have broken down centuries ago.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >In fact, Linnaean names are *not* changed for either of those reasons,
    >nor for any other reason whatsoever: though we now know that Basilosaurus
    >is a proto-whale and not any sort of reptile, Basilosaurus it will
    >remain forever.
    >
    >The only thing that can happen in Linnaean nomenclature is the recognition
    >that two names are synonymous. In that case, there is a question which
    >shall be the preferred name, and normally it is the first name published,
    >but exceptions sometimes occur. Thus when Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus
    >were found to be synonyms, Apatosaurus was chosen as the preferred
    >name because it was published first; however, this is not properly
    >describable as "changing the name of Brontosaurus to 'Apatosaurus'".
    >"Brontosaurus" is a perfectly good name and may still be used even though
    >it is dispreferred.
    >
    >
    >
    I'm no expert on this... but I thought that species could be transferred
    from genus to genus as knowledge advances. And presumably obvious
    spelling mistakes are corrected (contrast "FHTORA" in U+1D0C5), or are
    you saying that if the first publication had "Brontosuarus" as a typo
    this error would remain for ever?

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 19:14:51 EST