OK I'll bite,
capitalising common names but leaving the generic in lower
case ("Red Kangaroo" vs "kangaroo") is almost diametrically opposed to the
practice with the scientific name, where the generic name is caitalised,
and the specific name (unless derived from a name) is in lower case. Unless
there is excellent reason to the contrary, I reckon the conventions should
be as similar as possible. I must confess I am unswayed by the argument
from ambiguity; in most contexts, most specififc names are not ambigious;
how, for example, would such an ambiguity arise over "white bellied sea
eagle" and not "White-bellied Sea Eagle"?
I do not see this as a life a death issue, so if the convention shifted in
this direction I would follow it, but I am yet to see the over-whelming
case.
kim
ps Unless, that is, one has been convinced by those who write on the nature
of species that species are individuals, albiet spatio-temporally scattered
ones lile The British Empire rather than kinds. But I will spare the list
an excursion into the metaphysics and semantics of species.
Dr Kim Sterelny
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and
Philosophy, RSSS, Australian Nataional University
Australian contact information:
Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Phone: 02/6249-2886
Fax: 02 6249 3294
Messages with Di Crosse, Program Administrator, 02 6249 2341
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
