[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Scientific nomenclature.
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:24:26 -0800
>From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg at wcf_com>
>Subject: Re: Ameca splendens
>
>At 03:48 AM 12/21/01 -0500, tsuh yang chen wrote:
> >btw, a species name should never be capitalized (i.e., Ameca splendens,
>not
> >Ameca Splendens).
>
>This is actually quite a controversial point among scientific
>editors. About 60% follow the rule above, about 40% don't. Most of this
>minority are outside the US and UK. But both are viewed as correct in most
>circles, with the specific name preferred uncapitalized. PAM chose to go
>with the majority. So does CK.
Actually, if you look at any European scientific journal or other journals
from foreign countries as well as the U.S., almost all I've seen follow the
rule of first capitalized and second not. That's the general paradigm in
the scientific community and one that was established in Europe very early
on. I have seen it with both capitalized and in my opinion detracts from
the validity of the article. In fact, a paper recently submitted by a
scientist I know, came back with a correction on the spelling speicifically
on the issue we've discussed here. But, since we're here to talk about
plants, this should be taken with a grain of salt. We're just hobbyist and
not publishing a paper. Besides, I knew what kind of fish was being
discussed and didn't care if both letters were capitalized. No harm done
right?
Just my $0.02 worth.
Bailin Shaw
Senior Research Associate
eXegenics Inc.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com