Aff., etc., continued
rom!john at ZOO.TORONTO.EDU
Sun Nov 14 21:33:37 CST 1993
> John McNeill writes that I am completely wrong? In what sense.
> Am I wrong in stating that a discipline such as taxonomy needs
> well-defined rules and procedures? Am I wrong in trying to clarify
> what is meant by aff. or cf.?
No, not completely wrong. Of course taxomomy needs well-defined rules and
procedures, but there is absolutely no point in seeking precision
where historically there has been none. I think the past few days of
debate have clarified fully how imprecise aff. and cf. ARE. Define new
terms as Stephen Bentivenga suggests or use a ? as Jim Croft would - but
better still just leave Barry Roth's beautiful 21st century perspective as
the last word.
More information about the Taxacom