More on Article 71
warren_lamboy at QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU
Fri Mar 17 10:29:04 CST 1995
OFFICE MEMO More on Article 71 Date:16/03/1995
Dear gentle reader:
It is clear to me that the only way to bring order and stability to botanical
nomenclature (and by logical extension to the world at large) is, obviously,
to give every single individual and object its own unique name. In fact, I
have begun to do just that with the trees and shrubs in our yard. Here spring
is just about to begin, and sadly I must report that my favorite high bush
cranberry, Lester, seems not to have survived. Happily, though, our 25
colorado blue spruces, Percy through Poindexter (listing them in alphabetical
order by height) seem to have made it.
Incidentally, please forgive me for describing the above plants in terms of
their "common" generic names (cranberry and spruce) and then by their "common"
specific epithets (high bush and colorado blue). This is an artifact of my
own regretable mental limitations, and such binomial nomenclature of course
has no rightful place or utility within modern biological science. I blush at
my unintentional exhibition of crass ignorance in inadvertently using such
nomenclature. This humble and unenlightened man must go now and set about
naming each individual letter that was used in this message. This is
necessary because to state that some written figure is the letter 's', is
another example of the binominal nomenclature ("genus" = letter, "specific
epithet" = ess) which no right-minded person can any longer abide. After that
I will need to purchase a book of baby names (oh no! binomial nomenclature
again! - gen=book, spec=baby name)--for one can only imagine the number of
different names I will need for the clay bits in the cats' box! Eventually I
may be forced to invent ridiculous names, such as . . . oh, say . . . Warren!
P.S. On the other hand, wouldn't it just be simpler if everything had the
same name? I vote for Frabsmweque.
More information about the Taxacom