Heh, glad you liked it.
"But, you can’t be writing “technical” verbiage if your commentary is to be read and understood by the general populace simply because many of said populace won‘t or can’t comprehend exactly what the animal or plant actually is that was stipulated in your commentary."
But I can and will! Speculating about the general populace and it's ability to comprehend exactly is inexact at best, so you might as well do the right thing instead of assuming a level of can't and won't. When I was editing department of transportation documents for statewide public consumption, it was the opinion of the wildlife biologists involved that correct usage should apply no matter who was reading it. It was just as easy to write the right thing as to write the wrong thing, or not to care either way. So why not do it right?
Well, after this it will all be hair splitting and "who's right." Uh oh, I forgot to capitalize "Latin" so that shows how dumb I am! Did I err? Yes, I did. I'm happy to say so, in the hopes that it will provide an antidote to that hobgoblin of little minds, a foolish consistency. But don't confuse foolish and consistency. Anyway, I happily admit that I'm an atavism: the sad fact is that most people don't speak, think or read beyond a 4th grade level, a fact of which at least one of our leading politicians is well aware. I've said my piece and PeLady figured out who made the duck, so mission accomplished. Any future misunderstandings re: usage will just have to be chalked up to that old fuddy-duddy Ghopper, you know how HE is!
