|
As discussed in the Oculudentavis retraction thread, no group has power unless we give it to them. But there's no moral value to giving a group power if you only follow them when you want to. Then you haven't given them power at all, you're just using them
when they agree with you and ignoring them when you don't. I WANT there to be a group with power over nomenclature, or else we're all just playing games so why bother knowing and citing the Codes because the community will do what it does? If the ICZN were
some draconian unbending entity that was finding resolutions most people disliked I might see your point, but they are very willing to engage with the community to maintain stability and fairness, so the least we can do is engage with them.
Your opinion on Procheneosaurus is confusing since you admit the community will support dumping it regardless, so there couldn't be any confusion to be stirred up if it were a cut and dry case. So given the choice, wouldn't you rather have it officially suppressed
than unofficially ignored and always there in the background as not really a valid thing?
Mickey Mortimer
From: Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:10 AM To: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> Cc: Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>; Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>; DML <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 12:04, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
I understand your disquiet, but this is the reality. The ICZN has no power to do anything but recommend. It's great to have it there, but the truth is always that the nomenclature in actual use is determined by what people actually use — in fact, it's more
than truth, it's tautology. So there is simply no value in stirring up confusion about Procheneosaurus, as there is zero chance of the global community switching away from Lambeosaurus to that name.
-- Mike.
|