|
There's no harm, but I also don't see a pragmatic point to doing so. >From the perspective of a scientist, a name is just a label, so so you'd want something that aids in communication- unique, memorable, easy to write and say, etc.. But Latin hasn't been
the language of the world or the language of science for decades and there's no reason to believe it will be again. The hard fact of the world is the vast majority of scientists don't learn Latin or Greek, have little reason to do so, and the current language
of science is English. So why do you care if they follow archaic rules that are only of use to historians when creating a biological label? As someone so in thrall with the Shiny Digital Future, can't you see this is just 'tradition' and 'propriety' that
is being swept away by the arc of history?
Mickey Mortimer
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:36 AM To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote: > While I couldn't care less about proper Latin or Greek formulation in names, It pains me to read that, Mickey. Personally, I wince whenever I see a badly formed name - including _Oculudentavis_. Based on the comments by other DML contributors, I'm heartened that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Where's the harm in authors trying just a bit harder to get their names right? |