Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our predecessors?
The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.-a At least, "The
ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species whose names might
now be considered offensive, and would not consider banning eponyms,
says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the Natural History
Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds.
This is because the organization places great importance on preserving
the rCystabilityrCO of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed retrospectively, he says."
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our predecessors? T
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop. Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.-a At
least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species
whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not consider
banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the
Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. rCLWe do not recommend
renaming unless there are what we would call formal nomenclatural
reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the organization places great
importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO of names, and this could be
threatened if they are changed retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species
whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not consider
banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the
Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. rCLWe do not recommend >>> renaming unless there are what we would call formal nomenclatural
reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the organization places great
importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO of names, and this could be >>> threatened if they are changed retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not
consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the past.
On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. >>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. >>>>>> rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish
problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
past.
Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to happen in the future.
But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. >>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would >>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a >>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. >>>>>>> rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish
problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
past.
Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
happen in the future.
But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
There are some suggestions: rCLemanating racism, sexism, named under >(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figuresrCY. There is an
added note that "The teamrCOs analysis has not yet been published or >peer-reviewed."
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. >>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would >>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a >>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. >>>>>>>> rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish
problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
past.
Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
happen in the future.
But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
There are some suggestions: rCLemanating racism, sexism, named under
(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figuresrCY. There is an
added note that "The teamrCOs analysis has not yet been published or
peer-reviewed."
Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. >>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would >>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a >>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. >>>>>>>> rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the
organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO >>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish
problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
past.
Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
happen in the future.
But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
There are some suggestions: rCLemanating racism, sexism, named under
(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figuresrCY. There is an
added note that "The teamrCOs analysis has not yet been published or
peer-reviewed."
Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is theFunny story! The connection to Megalosaurus is pretty indirect, but definitely an inappropriate name.
name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.
On 2/22/24 5:59 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpsonFunny story!-a The connection to Megalosaurus is pretty indirect, but definitely an inappropriate name.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:Whoop.-a Forget the reference:
Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. >>>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming >>>>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would >>>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a >>>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. >>>>>>>>> rCLWe do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call >>>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,rCY he adds. This is because the >>>>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the rCystabilityrCO
of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
retrospectively, he says."
What is this in regard to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.-a I wish >>>>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the >>>>> past.
Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to >>>> happen in the future.
But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
There are some suggestions: rCLemanating racism, sexism, named under
(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figuresrCY. There is an
added note that "The teamrCOs analysis has not yet been published or
peer-reviewed."
Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:03:38 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (18,532K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,651 |