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

Re: To Fred Bervoets



Dear Robert,

I agree with your statement only for a bit.
I do agree that latin names for taxa must be used, not for cultural reasons,
but for communative reasons: when a taxon is named, it's named and there
can't be any excuse to "translate" it into pseudo-english or any other
language. My greatest problem as a non-english speaking person to know what
english speaking persons are talking about, is their way to translate
"latin" taxa into english "taxa", we are discussing different things. This
could be avoided if only everybody used the same names. Of course you can
akin to nit-picking, and you can win or lose the argument, this doesn't
matter. But what does matter is the science, please spend the little time
you have to science, and leave species named as they are, without asking
wether it is grammaticly correct. I agree, it's nice when it's grammaticly
correct, but only nice. All what matters is: what are we discussing.
I try to study birds, for the fossil bird Liaoningornis longidigitris Hou,
1997, the name mentioned first in the publication, I came across a lot of
other names (liaoningornis was spelled correctly). I can't give an opinion
on the grammar of longidigritis, but I can give an opinion on the name to be
used for this species: Liaoningornis longidigitris Hou, 1997, and no other.
In 1990 Hou described Songzia heidangkouensis and reffered it to a new
family: Songzidae. This can't be correct, it must be Songziidae. What to use?
We must know what we are talking about, whether english, dutch or chinese
speaking, that's the only important thing, not grammar, that's for other
students, so I will use the name Songzidae, that's the name the family was
given, grammaticly incorrect as it may be, but it's the name, Songziidae is
incorrect.

Fred Ruhe

At 20:26 10-08-2001 -0400, you wrote:
>? ?Dear Hono(u)red Persons,
>
>Although this is the 21st century by common reckoning, there is no call to
>abandon proper
>grammatical usage of ancient languages, now "dead" by many generations.
>While current idiomatic
>English (and Modern Persian/Farsi, among other kindred Indo-European
>languages) lightly discards
>gender and even number agreement, classical Latin and ancient Greek allowed
>no such liberties.
>Their respective powers of expression through case and gender suffixes made
>attributions and
>relationships unambiguous. It behooves us to hono(u)r their conventions,
>which, by the way, were
>the very reasons they were the preferred modes of communication among
>savants and clerics during
>the Western Middle Ages and the subsequent Western Renaissance and Western
>Enlightenment in
>which we continue to operate.
>
>On paper, it is a small matter, akin to nit-picking. Still, it hearkens back
>to our cultural and scientific
>roots and should be observed to the best of our abilities. There is no shame
>in anchoring our
>nomenclature to the usages of Linnaeus (A.D. 1707-1778), Caesar (100-44
>B.C.), Theophrastus
>(ca. 372-ca. 287 B.C.), and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.).
>
>The digital future may be alarmingly different, but we're not there yet.
>
>-= Tuck =-
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
>To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:54 PM
>Subject: Re: To Fred Bervoets
>
>
>> In a message dated 8/10/01 3:44:55 PM EST, Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com
>writes:
>>
>> << Okay, now I'm confused.  Back in February of 1997
>> (http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1997Feb/0514.html), you wrote A.
>> lammersi and T. tilletti should be retained as the correct names because
>the
>> ICZN ruled that the emendation was unjustified.  Has this changed? >>
>>
>> That was me buying into a position that I later discovered was incorrect.
>The
>> ICZN didn't rule on anything; Peter Dodson obtained a letter from the
>> secretary, Philip Tubbs, that supported his side of the Avaceratops
>> lammersorum argument, and I was snowed. But I subsequently realized that a
>> mere letter from the ICZN secretary is not a ruling, so I reverted to my
>> earlier position. The spellings used in MM #3 first printing will be the
>ones
>> I'll use from now until the day the ICZN actually publishes an Opinion
>that
>> conserves the incorrect original spellings.
>
>
>