|WikiProject Tree of Life||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
The speedy deletion/patent nonsense occurs maybe because this entry term contains a suspect word. Please re-consider. It is a valid biological nomaenclature concept.
The Name of the Rose
The Name of the Rose ends with Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. --Error 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- "The ancient rose remains (only) in its name, naked names (are all) we hold on to". Eco's postscript to the novel says:
- Since the publication of The Name of the Rose I have received a number of letters from readers who want to know the meaning of the final Latin hexameter, and why this hexameter inspired the book's title. I answer that the verse is from De contemptu mundi by Bernard of Morlay, a twelfth-century Benedictine, whose poem is a variation on the "ubi sunt" theme (most familiar in Villon's later "Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan"). But to the usual topos (the great of yesteryear, the once-famous cities, the lovely princesses: everything disappears into the void), Bernard adds that all these departed things leave (only, or at least) pure names behind them. I remember that Abelard used the example of the sentence "Nulla rosa est" to demonstrate how language can speak of both the nonexistent and the destroyed. And having said this, I leave the reader to arrive at his own conclusions.
- Gdr 17:49:27, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
Originally, in Sept 2005, I just assured that it was clear that this did not apply to botany and left it as it was. In view of the recent attempt to connect this again with botany (apparently stemming from a mission to present a unified and simplified picture of taxonomy for all organisms, and thus to deny the distinction between botany and zoology; between taxonomy and nomenclature; between botanical nomenclature and zoological nomenclature, etc), I did look up the relevant provisions in the zoological Code. Thus, the deletion of everything that was counter to the ICZN, substituting the official definition. Brya 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- When a term is used in both zoological and botanical nomenclature, appears in both nomenclatural codes, and is identical in spelling and essentially so in meaning under both, I'm afraid I just don't see the problem with including information relating to both in one article. MrDarwin 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
<<removed personal attack>> - TeunSpaans 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Brya, could you please point out where you see the differences? Perhaps that could be of any help in solving this dispute? TeunSpaans 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't expect anybody to care, in this atmosphere of war for its own sake, I would like to point out that the fact I left the example does not mean that I approve of it. As Linnaeus devoted better than half a page to a description of Pan troglodytes I don't see how this can be a nomen nudum. However, I left this in, as I do not feel inclined to do much on zoological nomenclature, beyond the basics. Certainly this article is not up to the standards of botanical nomenclature. Brya 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Given the persistence on including botany in this article I changed my mind about this example. On further reflection it appears as untenable under the ICZN as under the ICBN. Brya 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the entertainment sector of role playing games, that for fun creates terms like: Dendro sapiens (elfs), Styganthropus piltdowni (orcs or trolls)? Said: Rursus ☻ 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I see 'nomen nudem' used often by scientists in discussions of taxonomy where they mean nomen nudum. It makes no sense as Latin. I want to presume it is a mistake, but so many people use it, I wonder if it has some real origin or legitimacy. Is it an acceptable form among scientists now?Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Significance of the 1930-1931 transition?
Is it just a simple clarification of phrasing, with no real significance, or was something in fact changed in the definition of a nomen nudum after 1930? I have trouble parsing any significant change in the definitions, though I am not a taxonomist, so it is possible I am missing some subtlety. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like wordsmithing to me. The only functional difference I can think of would be stating "states in words" as opposed to leaving that unsaid; in the 1930s, R. S. Lull managed to get one name for a duckbilled dinosaur suppressed for another, even though the event that supposedly established priority was the publication of the "earlier" name in a caption to a photo in a book in 1922. Couldn't tell you why he bothered. J. Spencer (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
can't re-use n.n. in zoology... and in botany...?
I deleted the paragraph about re-use of a nom nudum; based on the info in this same article, a n.n. CANNOT be used in zoology; not sure about botany, either; this needs to be checked by someone more familiar with the Codes than am I. philiptdotcom (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)