Re: September CPN + N.xiphioides + Latin descriptions

Carl Strohmenger (
Sun, 1 Oct 1995 18:59:49 -0400 (EDT)

The scientific nomenclature is not Latin as such. It is based on some
Latin language useage rules and declentions, but it is properly the
_Scientific Name_ and not the Latin name.

> > Fernando Rivadavia Lopes and Dale Evans wrote
> > Subject: September CPN + N.xiphioides + Latin descriptions
> >
> > I think it's a pain in the .... to have to sort out all those Latin
> > descriptions, . . .
> > if this was up for a vote, I'd want to
> > dump Latin descriptions altogether and go for English.
> > The
> > irony is that the use of Latin was intended to overcome this multiple
> > language problem.

In addition, the use of the scientific nomenclature overcomes the problem
of the multiplicity of COMMON Names. Since any name that is used locally
by some popilation for a particular species is a valid COMMON name, we
have to have some **Unique** method of determining what species we are
all talking about. English wont do that, because anyone speaking English
with his/her own common terminology would seem to be talking about
another species.

> Latin is dead and so
> was picked for use so as not to favor any nations (besides Vatican,
> I suppose). Now, much later, it seems the whole world is favoring
> English more and more as an universal language so the scientific
> community should take heed of this change and perhaps alter the way
> these descriptions are validated.

On the contrary! - As more people use English for their normal universal
language communications, there will be more and more COMMON names used
for the same species.

Really, it isnt so difficult to learn a few scientific names for the sake
of clarity in communicating your thoughts about a particular species. Let
the taxonomists fifgt it out on the broad front, and then use the
accepted scientific terms. It makes it easier for all of us.

Just my not-so-modest opinion.

- Carl