in reply to Geoff Read's message:
I refer to the last paragraph.
There are only a few simple grammatical rules involved with those
scientific names, and these rules concern only the ending of the word.
Should the suggested "simplification" become more acceptable next
time, we should also think of simplifying the ENGLISH used for the
descriptions: no longer bother about articles, singular or plural,
-ing forms, or 's. In fact, the search for the old-fashioned "right"
use of such oddities is confusing and time-wasting for many people,
worldwide. That's nothing but minor nuances.
>I wrote:
>> geographic adjectival endings like 'iensis' are rock solid.
>>Well some rocks are more solid than others! An assignment to a neuter
>genus requires the 'is' to become 'e'. Thus my assertion was incorrect. But
>fortunately neuter genera are not that common.
>>Why is the code still binding us to observe minor nuances of Latin grammar
>such as above when stability of names is so crucial? The new 2000 code
>preamble states the advantage of treating original spellings as invariable
>(seriously considered at the draft stage) would have been that electronic
>searching was facilitated. That the editorial committee did not also have in
>mind the elimination of the time-wasting confusions and uncertainties such
>as illustrated by this thread is rather surprising.
----------------
Helmut ZIBROWIUS
Centre d'Oceanologie de Marseille
Station Marine d'Endoume
Rue Batterie des Lions
13007 Marseille / France
TEL: +33 (0) 491041624
FAX: +33 (0) 491041635
E-MAIL: hzibrowi at com.univ-mrs.frhttp://www.com.univ-mrs.fr
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://www.annelida.net/
--
