ICBN too

Ron at Ron at
Mon Jul 16 02:09:30 CDT 2001


The problems lay not in the systems but in the humans. EGO. The power
struggles and clicks will screw up whatever is next too. My opinion :-)
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: ICBN too


> Richard and Mary,
>      This precisely why a more stable cladisto-eclectic system of
> classification is likely to evolve from the present mess of nomenclature.
> When PhyloCode finally gets implemented, the cladists are going to get
hit
> with a wall of resistance that is pretty much unexpected, from scientists
> (traditionalist eclecticists) and non-systematic scientists who are more
> interested in identification and stability, and the various levels of
> serious amateur naturalists (collectors, gardeners, or whatever).
>      We can't really go back to the old traditional eclecticism as it
once
> way practiced (it was not rigorous enough in most cases), so a hybrid
> (cladisto-eclectic) system is inevitable.  That is what I envisioned in
the
> late 1970's when I was working on the Kinman System, and I'm convinced
that
> something along these lines is a new common ground that all users of
> classifications will find useful.  The problem is trying to convince both
> sides that such common ground does exist if we work together to fashion
it.
>       I am quite weary of cladist vs. eclecticist, and town vs. gown.  In
my
> mind, it is a senseless waste of time and energy.  As I once said in one
of
> poems (on more economic matters), the wealth we seek is lost in war.   We
> are wasting so much energy in a way that future generations will find
hard
> to understand.  There is no good reason that scientific names should be
this
> unstable, so much so that even common names seem preferable.  I'm sure
> Linnaeus would find the present state of affairs rather shocking.
>                   -----Ken Kinman
> *******************************************************
> >From: Richard Rabeler <rabeler at UMICH.EDU>
> >Reply-To: Richard Rabeler <rabeler at UMICH.EDU>
> >To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> >Subject: Re: ICBN too
> >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:08:07 -0400
> >
> >I second Mary's comments.  Many folks I have dealt with do want a name,
but
> >they also want a name that will "stay".
> >
> >An example one of my colleagues provided in the early 80s comes to mind.
> >This individual asked me what the scientific name was for White Campion.
> >When I replied that the name she used would depend on her concept of the
> >genera Lychnis and Silene and that the "correct" name in Silene was
still
> >the subject of some disagreement, she replied:
> >
> >"Gees. I don't really care why its Lychnis alba, Silene alba, or Silene
> >pratensis ssp. alba (or now really Silene latifolia ssp. alba), it's
still
> >White Campion"
> >
> >Rich Rabeler
> >University of Michigan
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG]On Behalf Of
> >Mary Barkworth
> >Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:07 PM
> >To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> >Subject: Re: ICBN too
> >
> >
> >The other group of 'common name' users is that composed of people who
> >are interested in the entities themselves, not their relationship
> >(however interpreted) to other entities.  If I want to grow Scarlet
> >Gilia in my garden, or use it in my landscape business, I really do not
> >care whether it is called Ipomospis or Gilia, I just want to be able to
> >know what to look for in references.  Yes, this group probably overlaps
> >with those who do not care about how names are assigned and why they are
> >changed, but there is a reason for the 'do not care' attitude. And when
> >one lives in a country with officially recognized common names (such as
> >the US), then 'common names' may well be more stable than scientific
> >names.  Just look at the blasted Triticeae.  It does not seem to bother
> >English name users that wheatgrasses are simply the old Agropyron and
> >Ryegrasses the old Elymus.  Classification is irrelevant to a huge body
> >of people working with plants. Names are not irrelevant, but a stable,
> >recognized name is worth more than a less stable, less well-accepted
> >name.
> >
> >Mary
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list