Talk:Binomen

This is now only a redirection page. Please leave any new comments about the topic at Talk:Binomial_nomenclature.

In reply to the assertion by the above editor that rendering the binomen in a different type-face is not a requirement, please see Appendix B-6:

6. The scientific names of genus- or species-group taxa should be printed in a type-face (font) different from that used in the text; such names are usually printed in italics, which should not be used for names of higher taxa. Species¬group names always begin with a lower-case letter, and when cited should always be preceded by a generic name (or an abbreviation of one); names of all supraspecific taxa begin with an upper-case (capital) letter. Note how it does not say anything about this being optional or subject to the discretion of the author. The printing of the binomen in a different type-face than the surrounding text (usually italics, but can also be underlining, bolding, different fonts, etc.) is part of the "General Recommendations" section of the code, but that does not mean they are optional. It's not a "must" but it's a "should" (i.e. it's not exactly regulated, but it's expected). Including examples of binomina incorrectly written is misleadingly giving the impression that it's perfectly acceptable. Notice that the stipulation for the species-group name to always be preceded by a generic name is also in Appendix B-6.

Your other changes to the article ("Both are formal names in their own right, and both have an author. Together these two names constitute the name of the species.") also gives the impression that the species-group names can be written alone, and I have thus reverted it as well. The rest of your edits ("Actually, a binomen does not have an author") have an inappropriate tone. This is a Wikipedia article, discussions should be in the talk page. And please do not change the rationale of a merge tag placed by another editor.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As to the first point, on that writing a binomen in a type-face (font) different from the surrounding text is a recommendation, that is of course correct: it is a recommendation. It is under the heading General Recommenndations and it says "should" not "must".

However you are losing me when you say that "this [is not] optional or subject to the discretion of the author." The provisions of the zoological Code are of two kinds: they are requirements or they are recommendations. It is in the very nature of a recommendation that it is "optional and subject to the discretion of the author." Otherwise it would be a requirement. This is perfectly in line with general usage in English: a recommendation is a "suggestion" or "advice" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/recommendation). The phrase "binomina incorrectly written" means binomina with spelling errors, there is no such thing as an "incorrect type-face for a binomen", but at most a "preferred type-face for a binomen" or a "non-preferred font". Do note that this is not a recommendation that applies in general, but is under the heading "Establishment and formation of new names", so this is a recommendation that is to be used when formally establishing new names. Otherwise it would be under the heading "Citation of names". Thus, writers in general (not publishing new names) have even more latitude.

My addition "Both are formal names in their own right, and both have an author. Together these two names constitute the name of the species." is very close to the literal text of the zoological Code. If this "gives the impression that the species-group names can be written alone" then this is because that is so. If you look at formal cases submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature you will find this being done regularly and frequently, and indeed the zoological Code itself does so (see the first Example in Article 24). It is only in general texts aimed at the lay-public, such as Wikipedia, that this is unusual, which is understandable because the general public is not interested in details of nomenclature or taxonomy, but in the current name (or names) of a species, which is the binomen (or binomina). The comment above also applies to "Notice that the stipulation for the species-group name to always be preceded by a generic name is also in Appendix B-6."; this also is a recommendation (not a stipulation) and again to be used when formally establishing new names.

The "Actually, a binomen does not have an author" is not an argument, or part of a discussion, but a factual statement. It is something that the reader of an encyclopedia article deserves to be made aware of.

I see that this page "binomen" has been deleted, which is a pity, as it was a page on a well-defined topic. The page "binomial nomenclature" (to which the reader is now deferred) is on a not-well-defined topic and likely serves mostly as a conversation piece, illustrating how right Mark Twain was?

Tottingshire

A flamewar has resulted because of this in Talk:Binomial nomenclature and I'm too tired and too insulted to continue the discussion there. Please do not turn the discussion again into definitions. Yes we all know what "recommendation" means, but a recommendation in ICZN is not as trivial as a "recommendation" in colloquial usage. Going to dictionaries to argue the meaning is pointless. Instead take a look at what the recommendations actually say, and how they are followed in actual usage.

So tell me, how are they followed? Are any of the recommendations being flagrantly ignored by actual biologists? No. These recommendations are followed as closely as possible, From Recommendation 1A urging zoologists to make sure the names are not already used in botanical nomenclature to Recommendation 6 in Appendix B which is actually mirrored by Article 28. Indeed they are repeated in the actual code itself (see Article 25 for example) as well as the Appendix. Thus emphasizing the "not required" in your edits does not reflect real-world usage. You are merely giving the false impression to readers that these recommendations have about the same weight as the recommendation "best with milk!" on a box of cereal.

And exactly. It says "should", not "if you like", "maybe", "sometimes", or "if the author also wants he can print it in alternating italics and uppercase letters, bolding the last letter, and underlining half of each word". While yes, it is not a requirement in determining validity of the publication, in general usage, it is not something as trivial as "optional". And the proof of that is the universal adherence by biologists to the convention.

Specific names must also always be unambiguous. Thus it can not be written alone in usage. When I say brevis, can you guess what animal I'm talking about then? No you can't. It's meaningless on its own. Article 24 is giving an example, not using it. While yes you can use it on its own when the genus it belongs to has already been implicitly given, that is rarely the case in actual usage. See Article 11.9.3 and Article 25.

Neither are author citations for species mentioned together with the author citations for the genera. You don't say Canis Linnaeus, 1758 dirus Leidy, 1858, you say Canis dirus Leidy, 1858. That genera and species each have an author is already a given. But when talking about species (which you would be doing so when using a binomen), you only cite the author of the specific name. Ditto with subspecies in trinomina. Thus no, saying that "both have an author" is unnecessary and misleading. Why would you need to mention that?

And exactly, the general public is not interested in details of nomenclature or taxonomy. We are not instructing readers on how to publish names. We are explaining how names are published and treated by biologists. Anything that gives a false impression as to the actual practices of biologists, regardless of whether it's a rule, a recommendation, or a convention, does not serve anyone. Mentioning snippets of the code without context or comparison is bordering on trivia and only paints a wrong picture of how the names are used. By mentioning that printing the names italics or that specific names should be in lowercase are not requirements for determining validity, what did you hope to accomplish? It's bad enough that even the most well-respected newspapers and other lay publications continue to print names like Canis Familiaris, without having to actually give them justification and encourage the practice. Think of the readers first.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, you are terribly confused, aren't you? At least you are honest enough to admit that what you are trying to do is not to inform the readers of facts, but in telling popular tales ("the general public is not interested in details of nomenclature or taxonomy.")

Then you claim to want to educate the reader on how things are to be done in your part of the real world, although at the same time you complain that the real world does not want to follow you ("It's bad enough that even the most well-respected newspapers and other lay publications continue to print names like Canis Familiaris, without having to actually give them justification and encourage the practice.")

You are not engaged in contributing towards an encyclopedia at all, but what you are doing is using Wikipedia as a platform to express your opinion on how things are to be done in your book. As it happens the way things are done in your book is not how it is done in the (real) real world, and you are not making sense at all. You refer to Article 25 ("Article 25. Formation and treatment of names. A scientific name must be formed and treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 11 and Articles 26 to 34 (also see Appendix B, General Recommendations).") as if it supports your argument, while it does nothing of the sort. And what you ascribe to a Recommendation is what most zoologists (as well as the Code itself) would ascribe to a rule. Saying that you are hopelessly confused is a euphemism.

Tottingshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottingshire (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and it is supposed to go by:

"Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement."

Your Truth/Opinion: "We are explaining how names are published and treated by biologists. Anything that gives a false impression as to the actual practices of biologists, [...] does not serve anyone." does not belong on Wikipedia, unless you are referring to a practice that is documented in reliable sources (and in that case it belongs on a different page, as it is a different topic, with plenty of references). You are on the wrong project with this.

The more I think about it, the weirder your "the general public is not interested in details of nomenclature or taxonomy." becomes. On page after page there is an almost obsessive preoccupation with details of nomenclature, even where they are not relevant. Something entirely different is happening here, presumably Wikipedians' vaunted deep aversion to any sort of rules (except the rules they made up themselves). Perhaps it is just Wikipedia's famous anarchism? Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference (where readers go to look stuff up). If they were not interested, they would not be consulting the page. It is wrong to offer them your Truth/Opinion instead of a factually accurate description.

Tottingshire —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]