I think this is a
very good idea.
Using symbols for
definitions is one, too; we could easily invent some for qualifying clauses,
such as the mathematical "without" sign \ . What about Pinnipedia =
{Otaria byronia de Blainville 1820 + Odobenus rosmarus L.
1758 + Phoca vitulina L. 1758 \ Ursus arctos L. 1758,
Canis lupus L. 1758}? (Means, the most recent common ancestor of the
first three and all its descendants, if the latter two do not belong to them.)
This would restrict words to apomorphy-based qualifying clauses and
definitions.
Just yesterday I've found the descriptions of 16
new species of, I think, Brazilian rainforest trees in the annals of 1999 of the
Natural History Museum Vienna. They do contain "diagnoses" in Latin, but these
are very short, barely longer than "5 -- 8 m high trees with
long, narrow leaves and fruits that measure 2.5 cm in diameter". After these
follow "descriptions" in English which repeat the diagnoses but add much more. I
got the impression (just my personal impression) that the author regarded
the Latin diagnoses as superfluous things required by bureaucracy and tried to
keep them as short as possible. (The specific epithets are freely invented words
designed to sound exotic and as far apart from Latin as
possible.)
|