That's a cop-out. If you want to name a genus or species using Latin
or ancient Greek, but can't be bothered constructing the name
properly... then why use these 'dead' languages at all? We may not
speak Latin or ancient Greek any more, but both are most often the
go-to languages when we want to create a new name. Therefore, we
should take the time to combine the words together correctly, rather
than just 'cut-and-paste' them together.
Not everyone can be expected to be across every detail of Latin or
Greek grammar and vocabulary - I'm certainly not. So if in doubt, ask
someone who is. Just email them. In my experience, people who are
conversant in these ancient languages are only too happy to help.
Such diligence might have spared us atrocities like
_Notatesseraeraptor_.
In general, I think "tradition" and "propriety" are important in
nomenclature. Rather than being swept away by the arc of history,
modern nomenclature can continue it. Genus and species names are a
lot more than "just a label" stuck on a specimen for convenience. I
think the naming of a new taxon should be more than just a perfunctory
act, done simply to replace a specimen number. You are naming a
creature that is entirely new to science, and the name will most
likely outlive you. After all the time and effort that goes into
describing a new taxon, I'm surprised at how little attention some
people give to actually naming the thing.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:14 PM Mickey Mortimer
<
mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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?