[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: nomenclature

 From: "Bob Myers" <bob@intelenet.net>
 > No one is proposing renaming species just because they didn't like the
 > name or they felt like confusing the public.

In fact this is actually forbidden by the rules.

As a silly example, there is a small pale violet flower in the
midwest named _Erythronium_.  The main element of this name
("erythro-") means "blood red".  The flower cannot be renamed
just because it isn't red, it has to keep this "inappropriate"

 > I can't help but think that you illustrate my points with this.  While
 > differential equations are, indeed, impenetrable to the average person,
 > they are necessary to a complete understanding of the physics.  They
 > don't go away because they are hidden behind long verbal explanations,
 > and no physicist would ever argue that they shouldn't ever be used just
 > because the average person cannot understand them.
 > The complications of the "renaming" situation are there and real.  You
 > can hide it also, but you can't make those complications go away so
 > easily.  Terminology is, as you suggest, the differential equations of
 > paleontology.  It's more than just paleobabble, just as differential
 > equations are not just physicists trying to hide their knowledge.
 > It still seems to me that some form of non-scientific name is necessary
 > if you want to hide this, or else restricting yourself to discussing
 > higher-level taxa only.  Hypsies and bone-heads, indeed.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.