In message <4515378F.2010409 garyjones.co.uk>, Gazza
<gazzagaryjones.co.uk> writes
>Andy Mabbett mumbled the following on 23/09/2006 12:52:
>> In message <4514F495.7040503garyjones.co.uk>, Gazza
>> <gazzagaryjones.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>>> allowing/encouraging research of more
esoteric or less frequently
>>>>> used/published data types (species,
moon/mars geolocations) on the Web.
>>>> Do you *really* think that species names
are "esoteric"? <*boggle*>
>>> Under a definition of only being used or known
by a small group of
>>> people, yes.
>> And you think that "Blackbird",
"poodle", "T Rex", "potato",
"French
>> Marigold", "Wisteria", "E.
Coli", "HIV", "Rubella" or
"human being" are
>> only used by a small group of people?
>
>"Species names" tend to only be scientific,
and therefore generally in
>Latin.
Absolute rubbish. "Crow" may be generic name, but
"Carrion Crow" is the
name of one species.
> The list you propose above would be considered
vernacular names at
>best.
Nonsense. "T Rex" is "Tyrannosaurus
rex"; "E. Coli" is "Escherichia
coli"; "HIV" is "Human immunodeficiency
virus"; "Rubella " is "Rubella
virus". All are taxonomic (or scientific) names.
"Wisteria" is a taxonomic genus.
"Blackbird"; "poodle";
"potato"; "French Marigold" and
"human being"
(arguments about Neanderthals not withstanding) are, indeed,
vernacular,
but still refer to individual species.
People use the vernacular AND taxonomic names of species in
everyday
speech and writing - just read or watch any populist
gardening magazine
or television programme. In fact, I'll wager that they do so
far more
than they use 8-digit geo-spatial references, but that
doesn't stop us
using "geo".
>Considering that no agreed formal definition of
"species" apparently
>exists[1] then
Of course there is, de facto, FOR TAXONOMIC PURPOSES. The
fact that
there are some minor, alternative systems of classification
in existence
is no more troubling than the fact that there are different
ways of
conveying the location of a point on the planet Earth.
There is more than one schema for recording postal addresses
or
someone's name - and far less international standardisation
than there
is for naming living things. Shall we therefore dump hCards?
>the usefulness of a supporting uF may be questionable.
Oh, that really is a joke. How on earth do you thing the
scientific
community functions? Do you think that of someone asks a
zoologist about
'Sturnus vulgaris', they throw their hands in the air,
saying that such
a term has no useful meaning?
>[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_
of_species>
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:
<http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourd
ata.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|