Status of the Biocode

Jim Croft jrc at ANBG.GOV.AU
Wed Feb 5 08:04:19 CST 2003


>Hi Jim: Tthe names in any {botanical] list start at 1753 -- but "current"
>is current, i.e the taxonomy of 2003 -- what am I misunderstanding?  John
>McNeill
and
 > Yes, Jim, yet dates for such 'current use' vary from 1753 onwards according
 > to whether we are talking Angiospermae, Pteridophyta, Araneae, (other)
 > Animalia, Bacteria, Viruses, etc. The Biocode doesn't intend to change this
 > but aims at unifying biological (binominal) nomenclature.  Thomas Pape

It wasn't a comment on the proposed biocode as such, which I think is a
good idea... one that I will probably never live to see...  it was a
comment on lists of names in current use that seem to get swept along with
the biocode, along with approval, registration, acceptable taxonomy,
centralization, control and all the rest of it...  I do not want to lose
old names, concepts and and the information that may have been attached to
them, and for some I guess emotional reason I want to know what a species
was called when it was first recognized and to still be able to call it by
that name...  the priority principles of the current codes seem to be able
to provide some level  of that sort of predictability, comfort and
security... :)

jim

~ Jim Croft ~ jrc at anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~




More information about the Taxacom mailing list