Binomial elimination

Marco_Bleeker mbleeker at EURONET.NL
Sat Mar 18 01:04:40 CST 1995

>I suggest sticking to the current binomial system.  Certainly in the group I
>work on (ants) generic names are very useful and convey lots of information.
> It's much easier to think in terms of the 300 generic names than it would
>be to have 10,000 species names as the basic unit of classification.

  I second this vote. Anyone who works with large numbers of species, often
uses only genus names in dayly conversation. Because the other party might
never have heard of the exact same species (name), but could have something
interesting to report about a related species (of the same genus). And
because large numbers become only managable when dealt with in groups. This
has perhaps more to do with the way the human mind works, than with a
significant important structure in the natural order 'out there'... I doubt
it, but even if this were true, there would still be enough reason to truely
honour the genius of mister Linnaeus: allowing us to communicate, and think
about nature's diversity.

  The problem I suppose is, that some people are annoyed by the fact that
species names change so often. I think this is more of a professional
problem. Objectively, species names DO NOT change often. Only we, who are so
close to the source, have to deal with this phenomenon a bit more often than
the rest of the world. I think it is a price I gladly pay, because the
proposed 'solution' of doing away with larger taxons or even the genusnames,
sounds like "throwing the child away with the bathwater", as a proverb in
Holland goes.

  Bye, Marco
<mbleeker at>...........Plants, Programs and Primitive creatures
<Marco Bleeker>.......................................Amsterdam, Holland

More information about the Taxacom mailing list