Talk:International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Info about the codification and enumeration....

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=zoological+codification&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+zoological+enumeration&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.216.199 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in intro section (English/French)?

"The Code is published in an English and a French version, both versions are official and equivalent in force, meaning and authority.[5] This means that if something in the English Code is unclear or its interpretation ambiguous, the French version is decisive." How does sentence 2 follow from sentence 1? Sentence 2 says the French is at least first among equals, but sentence 1 says that the English and French are exactly equal. Explain, please! Alan Canon (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right, good point. I fixed this. If something is unclear in the French Code, of course the English version is decisive. Both are equal in force.

There are some Articles where the English version can be interpreted in various ways, while the French version gives a clearer guide. Sometimes the French language allows to express things slightly more clearly than English, and sometimes the French and English versions do not cover each other in terms of correct translation (which might surprise). Art. 30.1.4.2 is such an example. That's the background of this passage.

I usually work with the English version, so I don't know if there are unclear passages also in the French Code (there might certainly be some). -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, found a case where the French Code is weak against the English version: Art. 32.5.2.6, here the English version should be considered. The French version differs in meaning, and does not reflect traditional or current practice. Art. 32.5.1.1 is an example where the two versions complement each other by slightly different formations of a sentence, so that the meaning is better understood if the two versions are read. In Art. 30.1.4.2 the French version is decisive because it simply makes more sense (the English version gives a restriction that is not necessary and most probably unintended). -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Principles

I find it very confusing that the six principles each have their own articles. I suggest they all be merged into this article.

I also found it difficult to follow the Principle of Typification. Perhaps an example (they are very helpful in the other Principle descriptions) would be useful.

Thanks

Ben (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, the articles should be integrated into the main page here, in six small subchapters. Moreover, the contents of all the six articles as such are relatively weak and should be revised.

An example in the article for the Principle of Priority: "The European eel was named Muraena anguilla by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758 and moved to the genus Anguilla by Franz Paula von Schrank in 1798 - such a sentence reflects just a marginal understanding of zoological nomenclature. It suggests that combining a specific name with a genus would be a nomenclatural act or something else official, or that it is of any nomenclatural interest recording it, which it isn't. With all the links to the authors the present version also suggests that the identity of the author would be important - actually it would be much more important to provide links to the publications where the information, new names or nomenclatural acts were published. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I added examples and integrated all 6 principles to the main page. Someone should take a look at it now and eventually remove the separate articles which are redundant now (I do not know how to do that), and then remove also the links at the bottom of the Principles chapter. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is a case of someone preemptively applying WP:SUMMARY style when there's not enough content, nor any other rationales, to justify doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender

Does anyone know quite where the dispute over the gender of "papilio" originated? Lewis & Short and the Oxford Latin Dictionary both have it as masculine only, and its modern derivative in French is also masculine. (The Spanish and Italian words for "butterfly" are feminine but appear unrelated to the Latin word.) A Latin gender mnemonic also has "papilio" as masculine ( http://www.inrebus.com/mnemoniclatin.php ). I didn't notice in L&S or OLD any note on any controversy about the word's gender (though maybe I missed something) and I'd have thought that in Linnaeus' day, people would have known Latin well enough to know it was masculine, so where did the myth of its femininity originate? Was it that Spanish and Italian scientists wanted it to be feminine, or that people felt butterflies simply ought to be feminine, or that they believed all Latin nouns ending "io" had to be feminine? 82.153.39.9 (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's tempting for a botanist to conclude that zoologists just didn't know Latin! Compare the list of species at Macroglossum with that at Himantoglossum, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Principle of the First Reviser

It would be more informative for casual readers and scientists alike to have all 6 principles of the Code discussed centrally in one article. Principle of the First Reviser should redirect to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of the First Reviser --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I support this - the First revisor is not prominent in and of itself...I'd never heard the term till now so...and best as part of a robust ICZN article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I support this. Even though I don't even know what the First Reviser is, I still think everything needs a part in Wikipedia, especially a genius like me, not to brag or anything... (Submitted by "Calvin2021", otherwise I guess you'll NEVER know my real name!...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.53.90 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, unless these principles also apply to botany and virology under the same names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The "six principles" of the ICN (see [1]) are different. The ICZN's principles have their equivalents in the ICN but are often subtly different and anyway have to be discussed using different terminology. Thus both the zoological and botanical codes use a principle of priority, but to discuss it in detail requires the use of terminology restricted to each code, e.g. "junior synonym" for the ICZN or "effective publication" for the ICN. There's no "principle of the first reviser" in the ICN, although Article 11.5 amounts to much the same thing. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The separate article lacks references and is unlikely to be visited. There is nothing on it that cannot be included here. Secondplanet (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The spinoff is pretty much a stub. No need for a content fork here. Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The stubs for the various sections of this page are better than the sections themselves because they allow for discussing how these principles relate to how the other codes deal with these issues. I would prefer to trim this very long page and list each of the current stubs as "main articles" at the start of each section. The Principle of Coordination is very different from how things work in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and it would be helpful to have that discussed, but that wouldn't fit here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821235959/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2003opinions.htm to http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2003opinions.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

De-capitalization

@Primergrey: your de-capitalization is not in line with established usage and alters the sense in some cases. For example, the "Principle of Priority" is not a general principle of priority, but a very specific rule in the ICZN, as per Article 23. The ICN (the botanical code) also has a principle of priority, but it is not the ICZN's Principle of Priority. "Priority" here has a very precise, legalistic meaning, not a general meaning. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Linnaeus as type specimen for H. sapiens

Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)