In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Andy Mabbett mumbled the following on 23/09/2006 12:52: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gazza >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.freeourdata.org.uk> _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
