Some reactions to the draft have already appeared in the Bull. of Zool. Nomenclature, 52:294-302 (1995) and 53: 6-17 (1996), but many more are available at the e-mail address just mentioned. I have read over the draft and the following notes indicate some of the more significant changes proposed. In a few cases I have added my own reactions, or those of others, to specific changes. The most controversial proposal in the draft probably is the decision to make species names invariable, i.e., the original spelling of adjectival names does not change to agree with gender of the genus to which they may subsequently be assigned. In other words, no gender concord.

Arnold Menke

Gonotopus sepsoides

Art. 8 (e) and Art. 11(b) both affect the availability of scientific names published after 1996. In order to be available, the publication containing the new names must be made available to Zoological Record, and the names recorded therein. If this is not done within 5 years, the names are treated as unavailable.

I agree with the comments of Gary Rosenberg (p. 300 of Bull. Zool. Nomencl. cited above): "Ever since there has been a Code of Zoological Nomenclature it has been possible to determine whether a name is [permanently] available as soon as it is published. Under the `five-year rule' in Article 11b, however, some names will become available immediately on publication but then become unavailable five years later. Inevitably some such names will have come into general use. I recommend that any name properly published in a work that the Zoological Record scans be automatically available. Such publications are listed in Zoological Record Serial Sources, the 5th edition of which noted that in September 1994 there were 6,564 serials on the scanned list. This would enable authors to choose a medium of publication that would immediately make their names permanently available. It would also mean that the Zoological Record would not be swamped with offprints from serials already scanned."

Art. 16 (a): The name of a new taxon must be accompanied by a diagnosis containing a summary of the characters that purport to differentiate the new taxon from others of the same rank within the next higher taxonomic category; those taxa being explicitly cited by name.

While this idea is a good one, it has an obvious flaw. It is not clear what is meant by "others". Does this mean the describer has to compare a new species with all others in the genus, or one, or just those regarded by the author to be similar to the new one? Obviously it would be impractical to compare a new species with all others in a large genus, say one containing 10 or more species. Generally most of us compare new taxa with what we regard as the most similar previously described ones.

Flavoleptus flavobalteatus (Cameron) (Eumenidae)

Art. 30: Gender of genus-group names. After 1996 a genus-group name is treated as a word without gender.

Art. 31: After 1996 adjectival species epithets are to be treated as invariable, regardless of the gender of a genus to which they may be reassigned. In other words the spelling in the original description of the name is to be used.

Art. 48: Species names transferred to genera of different gender are not to changed to agree in gender. In other words, the original spelling of adjectival names is not to be altered. Thus it is possible to have species names in a genus ending in -a, -us and -um.

Articles 30-31 and 48 all have to do with gender and abandonment of gender concord. In general, I agree with Sabrosky's comments on this issue (p. 298 of Bull. Zool. Nomencl. cited above): "I recognize that among taxonomists the day of competent knowledge of Latin and Greek is past. Although an `old-timer', I know little Latin and no Greek, but I learned the rudiments of the language of the field in which I chose to work (myia = fly, soma = body, stoma = mouth, pteron = wing, and so on, together with the common gender endings of adjectives). It did not seem difficult to do. From this limited knowledge and from examples already established, plus help from the Appencides in the Code and from Roland Brown's excellent Composition of Scientific Words, one can devise appropriate generic names or determine genders. The proposed List of Available and Potentially Valid Names in Zoology could be made the basic guide for future taxonomists, and gender of generic names and gender concord could continue into the future as a routine convention."

Sabrosky continues: "I feel some words should be said for our present system. We should not cavalierly shed a long-established system without due reflection on its usefulness, evaluation of an abrupt change of direction, and careful scrutiny of the proposed replacement plan. The radical change of the language of scientific names proposed in the Draft has resulted in making rules more complex by the well-intentioned effort to respect – to a certain extent – the practice of the past by devising separate pre-1997 and post-1996 rules. But any protection for pre-1997 names will be upset in new combinations after 1996 (Article 31b), and conflicting zoological opinions could – and I am sure would – result in conflicting usages. I am not convinced that the Draft's plan is either necessary or desirable, and it adds complexity."

Others have voiced similar sentiments in the Bull. Zool. Nomencl. cited above. Personally I think abandoning gender concord for species names is unnecessary. Can you imagine trying to remember, and keep straight in your mind, species names in a genus that may end in -a, -us, -um, etc.?