[Previous by date - "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Next by date - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Previous by subject - Rankless classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:10:40 -0500
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>, PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"
David Marjanovic writes: >What about an article that allows to correct preexisting names when converting them? For example, Ceratopsidae, named after Ceratops, should be >Ceratopidae. Same for Protoceratopsidae. Well, for one thing, the PhyloCode does not dictate the use of "proper" Latin or Greek... "Recommendation 17B. New clade names should follow the rules and recommendations of the preexisting codes with regard to Latin grammar. However, failure to follow those rules and recommendations does not nullify the establishment of names under the PhyloCode." I have been informed that the most recent version of the ICZN Code is extremely forgiving of grammatical "errors." Further, in the case David points out above, I know of not one single student of the CeratopSia who uses the "proper" version of the name. In fact, I have heard of only a small group of professional palaeontologists who prefer the "proper" term. Considering that the PROFESSIONAL literature (not, mind you, Salamander books and Encyclopaedias written for the public) has, until very recently, universally used the "improper" form, there is every reason to retain the "improper" version in the future. Or do we wish to forever run around correcting our elders on minutiae? Just my two cents... Wagner