Hi Rene
I will ignore the tone of that first sentence, and just try to answer your question.
Just for the record, this was split from a thread where I affirmed that the term "Zodiac section" is suited for referring to this section of the VM, because I see no immediate problems with communication. Past incidents have made clear that terms like "recipe section" and "pharma section"
did cause such difficulties. That said, I can understand why some people think there are issues with the term. Let's use your request as a test. A definition of
Zodiac which does not fit the corresponding VM section. I just went to You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. .
Let's go over the definitions:
- an imaginary belt of the heavens, extending about 8° on each side of the ecliptic, within which are the apparent paths of the sun, moon, and principal planets. It contains twelve constellations and hence twelve divisions called signs of the zodiac. Each division, however, because of the precession of the equinoxes, now contains the constellation west of the one from which it took its name.
This definition is talking about a part of the visible sky, basically a wider version of the ecliptic. This belt is divided in segments, the ones we use in astrology. To say that the VM section is "a zodiac" would be like saying that it is "an ecliptic" or "a tropic", which is awkward and doesn't apply. With this first definition I have already answered your question, but there are more - maybe those apply?
- a circular or elliptical diagram representing this belt, and usually containing pictures of the animals, human figures, etc., that are associated with the constellations and signs.
At first one might say that this definition applies to the VM section, but upon second reading we see that again it doesn't. This definition of "a zodiac" sees it as the entire sequence of signs, drawn together
in one diagram. This is the type of Zodiac we see very often in manuscripts and indeed in modern representations.
The final definition appears to treat a metaphorical extension of the concept, marked as "rare" in the proper entry:
- (rare) a circuit or round.
It's not really about the set being incomplete. It's neither about the duplication of two signs. It's not even about the fact that the sheep are goats.
Let's imagine that this is a proper series of the signs of the Zodiac.
Then
still this section would not contain "a Zodiac". It contains
something which uses the signs of the Zodiac. A calendar? A horoscope? Cycles of life? I don't know. But there is
no Zodiac in this section, just some of the signs, used inappropriately in some cases.
But for me the bottom line remains that the word "Zodiac section" serves its purpose in communication, so it's alright. But if we're going to discuss definitions, be prepared to actually understand those definitions.