[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
From: "Bob Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
The peace of God be with you.