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

Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race



Thomas Yazbeck <tyazbeck@comcast.net> wrote:


> English spelling is also a reason not to use that language. I would 
> definately NOT use Arabic very much, though: any word in that language can be
> spelled in a profusion of ways. I think it's ok to use Chinese names, but 
> only in CHINA. Latin and  easier because the Roman Empire and
> Alexander's were large and well-known. And most other prehistoric animals get 
> Latin/Greek names no matter where they are found. I also would
> advise against making a genus name and species name 'go together', in case 
> new species are found.


There are two separate arguments here:


(1) Which conventions are you *personally* most comfortable with, from
the perspective of an English-speaker with a professed aversion for
'multiculturalism'.


(2) Which conventions best serve the global scientific community?  Is
employing different languages and dialects for scientific names
(Chinese, Sioux, Aztec, Hebrew, Arabic, Touareg, Mapuche, Xhosa,
Mongol, etc) actually detrimental to global scientific communication?


I think it is constructive to disentangle these two arguments, rather
than assume that (2) is an extension of (1).






Cheers

Tim