Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our predecessors?
The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action. At least, "The
ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species whose names might
now be considered offensive, and would not consider banning eponyms,
says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the Natural History
Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. “We do not recommend renaming unless
there are what we would call formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds.
This is because the organization places great importance on preserving
the ‘stability’ of names, and this could be threatened if they are
changed retrospectively, he says."

On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our predecessors?
> The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.  At least, "The
> ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species whose names might
> now be considered offensive, and would not consider banning eponyms,
> says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the Natural History
> Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. “We do not recommend renaming unless
> there are what we would call formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds.
> This is because the organization places great importance on preserving
> the ‘stability’ of names, and this could be threatened if they are
> changed retrospectively, he says."

What is this in regard to?

On 2/21/24 12:01, erik simpson wrote:
> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our predecessors? T

I have no longer any tolerance for this crap. This mindset has fucked
up my life and is destroying my city.

On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.  At
>> least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species
>> whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not consider
>> banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the
>> Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. “We do not recommend
>> renaming unless there are what we would call formal nomenclatural
>> reasons,” he adds. This is because the organization places great
>> importance on preserving the ‘stability’ of names, and this could be
>> threatened if they are changed retrospectively, he says."
>
> What is this in regard to?
Whoop. Forget the reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y

On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming species
>>> whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not consider
>>> banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a taxonomist at the
>>> Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. “We do not recommend
>>> renaming unless there are what we would call formal nomenclatural
>>> reasons,” he adds. This is because the organization places great
>>> importance on preserving the ‘stability’ of names, and this could be
>>> threatened if they are changed retrospectively, he says."
>>
>> What is this in regard to?
> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y

Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.

On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would not
>>>> consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>
>>> What is this in regard to?
>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>
> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.

Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets. I wish
problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the past.

On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>
>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>
>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>
> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the past.

Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
happen in the future.

But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.

On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>>
>>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>>
>>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>>
>> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
>> past.
>
> Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
> the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
> happen in the future.
>
> But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
> might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
> encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.

There are some suggestions: “emanating racism, sexism, named under
(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. There is an
added note that "The team’s analysis has not yet been published or
peer-reviewed."

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>>>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>>>
>>> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
>>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
>>> past.
>>
>> Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
>> the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
>> happen in the future.
>>
>> But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
>> might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
>> encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
>
>There are some suggestions: “emanating racism, sexism, named under
>(neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. There is an
>added note that "The team’s analysis has not yet been published or
>peer-reviewed."

Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.

On 2/22/24 5:59 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>>>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>>>>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>>>>
>>>> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
>>>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
>>> the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
>>> happen in the future.
>>>
>>> But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
>>> might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
>>> encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
>>
>> There are some suggestions: “emanating racism, sexism, named under
>> (neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. There is an
>> added note that "The team’s analysis has not yet been published or
>> peer-reviewed."
>
>
> Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
> name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.

That's a funny story, thanks! It wasn't given to Megalosaurus except by
accident, but it's an inappropriate name for sure.

On 2/22/24 5:59 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>>>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>>>>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>>>>
>>>> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
>>>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
>>> the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
>>> happen in the future.
>>>
>>> But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
>>> might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
>>> encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
>>
>> There are some suggestions: “emanating racism, sexism, named under
>> (neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. There is an
>> added note that "The team’s analysis has not yet been published or
>> peer-reviewed."
>
>
> Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
> name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.
Funny story! The connection to Megalosaurus is pretty indirect, but
definitely an inappropriate name.

On 2/22/24 11:15 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/22/24 5:59 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:00:07 -0800, erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/24 8:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 6:59 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 6:03 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:20 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Do we really need to apologize for the bad thoughts of our
>>>>>>>>> predecessors? The ICZN apparently will be implored to take action.
>>>>>>>>> At least, "The ICZN is firmly against going back and renaming
>>>>>>>>> species whose names might now be considered offensive, and would
>>>>>>>>> not consider banning eponyms, says ICZN president Thomas Pape, a
>>>>>>>>> taxonomist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.
>>>>>>>>> “We do not recommend renaming unless there are what we would call
>>>>>>>>> formal nomenclatural reasons,” he adds. This is because the
>>>>>>>>> organization places great importance on preserving the ‘stability’
>>>>>>>>> of names, and this could be threatened if they are changed
>>>>>>>>> retrospectively, he says."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is this in regard to?
>>>>>>> Whoop.  Forget the reference:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00388-y
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly, not one single specific complaint. What are the 3% of bad
>>>>>> dinosaur names? Nobody says. What's wrong with them? Nobody says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not blaming anything specific leaves more possible targets.  I wish
>>>>> problems we have right now got more attention than problems from the
>>>>> past.
>>>>
>>>> Well, nobody is saying that any existing names should be changed, and
>>>> the ICZN doesn't allow it anyway. This is a proposal for what ought to
>>>> happen in the future.
>>>>
>>>> But there's not much even about what the new rules ought to be. One
>>>> might suppose that eponyms are discouraged, and descriptive names
>>>> encouraged. But it isn't clear what beyond that is proposed.
>>>
>>> There are some suggestions: “emanating racism, sexism, named under
>>> (neo)colonial contexts or after controversial figures”. There is an
>>> added note that "The team’s analysis has not yet been published or
>>> peer-reviewed."
>>
>>
>> Perhaps new rules will avoid names like "Scrotum humanum" which is the
>> name originally given to megalosaurus by Richard Brookes.
> Funny story!  The connection to Megalosaurus is pretty indirect, but
> definitely an inappropriate name.

But not in the way the article is talking about. It's no more
inappropriate than Basilosaurus.