critter names

Ron at Ron at
Thu Oct 11 19:14:28 CDT 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at POP.UCR.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: critter names

> Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> >Which simply shows the flaws with check list numbers which are usually
> >in sequence without regard to biotic relationship.  IF I did a check
list I
> >would assign a base number for each genus etc.  In a computer file, all
> >world genera known and unknown would have to have a base number asigned
> >available. 10000 = genus A, 10001 genus species, 10001.1 genus species
> >subspecies. Permanency by uniformity  -- which was what Doug was
> >dirrecting us to -- not numbers for the sake of numbers.
> This is the MOST flawed example of logic I've seen posted here in a
> long time. Your system is, by the very principles you define above,
> NOT permanent. If a species changes genus after you have assigned its
> number, your system requires that the number be changed. If a
> subspecies is elevated to species in your system, it can no longer
> remain as a decimal, but has to be given a whole number value, and
> the converse applies if a species is reduced to a subspecies. How can
> you not see how unstable that is?

Actually, it is not flawed logic - it is no logic. Just a dumb talking off
the top of ones head in an email. :-]     1) I was "thinking"  movement
would be allowed for within the zeros - but obviously did not think far
enough.   One would have to not have decimals.  The basic unit would be
subspecies not species - so 1001would stay the same regardless of rank
within the genus.  If moved to another genus it would need to be given
another number which would defeat permanency, and if the number was kept
when moved it would defeat uniformity.  2)  My main thought was on all
"world genera known and unknown"  which is the valid point in there.  If
one is going to assign random numbers for cataloging and inventory it
should be done is such a way from the start that the same number = biotic
entity is globally standardized. It will have to be done sooner or later.
Putting more man hours in now would seem to translate to less man hours
later to re-do everything or adjust something.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list