[Previous by date - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Next by date - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Previous by subject - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Next by subject - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:23:11 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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... I said "allow". :-) > I have been informed that the most recent version of the ICZN Code is > extremely forgiving of grammatical "errors." Yes. Our chief zoologist, Prof. L. Salvini-Plawen, doesn't like it. In a lecture he even called that "a compromise to the ignorant Americans"... It hurts to read *Bellusaurus* (from bellus = pretty), *Lurdusaurus* and *Cristatusaurus*, to cite examples not created by US citizens. > 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 [...] has, until very recently, > universally used the "improper" form, Most of it. Not e. g. Gregory Paul, George Olshevsky, Tracy Ford. > there is every reason to retain the "improper" version in the future. I must admit it sounds better. :o) > Or do we wish to forever run around correcting our elders on minutiae? Or do we wish to live forever with their errors -- how small they are is obviously very subjective -- and get a sour taste in the mouth every time we see them? To return to my original question, is everyone in the holidays who could tell me what has been changed on July 1?