Talk:Principle of Binominal Nomenclature

I examined the content of this separate page on Binomi n al nomenclature very carefully alongside the content of the much longer page Binomial nomenclature, and it was clear that the only differences were
 * 1) the additional n in the spelling
 * 2) the preference of some zoologists (allegedly, judging by remarks in the page) for the Binomi n al spelling.

For all ordinary visitors, and for the academic world at large, there is no difference between these terms except the above, and really both are trivial. Ther is a lot to say about the system; it was all said very well on the other page; and it made no sense to expand this page by saying it all twice.

All the English dictionaries I have in printed form (including many large recent editions) and the online ones I've seen treat both spellings as perfectly synonymous in biological taxonomy contexts, and there was no real scientific, semantic, linguistic, or even cultural reason to have a separate page of coverage here.

I have revised, expanded and clarified the Binomial... page to reflect the sensitivities of any zoologists who object to omission of the -n- and trust that nobody out there is going to destroy these efforts by reverting or vandalism! Iph 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)iph


 * It might have been better to discuss this beforehand. My concern is you don't mention discussing the codes for usages.  KP Botany 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Binary name should also be merged and redirected to this one. MrDarwin 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. KP Botany 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Made redirect
This page says nothing that isn't in Binomial nomenclature; has almost no links to it; isn't referenced. So I've made it a redirect to Binomial nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My reversion was later undone, without any explanation here. I left the page alone, hoping that it might be added to and so justified. It remains almost word-for-word identical to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. What is the point of a separate article which simply reproduces a section of a longer and better-referenced article? So I am going to repeat my former edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)