Separating Nomenclature and Classification (use of rank the rank
jmmaes at IBW.COM.NI
Mon Oct 9 17:38:00 CDT 2000
As I said once, the real problem with numerical taxonomy is wrong
spelling... What could be better is to say :
Pieris rapae = 9581243 (following cladogram xxx).
jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at POP.UCR.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Separating Nomenclature and Classification (use of rank the
> Richard Jensen wrote:
> >don't see how a functional system of nomenclature can exist without
> >reference to a classification or vice-versa.
> As Curtis Clark already hinted, "rankless" classification advocates are
> suggesting precisely this sort of thing. Effectively, you *could* have,
> say, "Species 71456812" as your taxon name, and "simply" show or make
> reference to a cladogram to explain where it fits in your classification.
> The name conveys no information, and doesn't need to, by design - that's
> what the cladogram is for. If you find the idea of not being able to place
> a taxon into any frame of reference unless it comes accompanied with a
> cladogram difficult to accept, well, welcome to the club. ;-)
> Yes, I realize that replacing names with numbers is not an idea with many
> (if any) supporters, so people should always have some (archaic) frame of
> reference even if the rankless advocates win out, but in a rankless scheme
> there really is no *effective* difference between a name and a number.
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
> phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom