Registration (was: TurboTaxonomy?)

B.J.Tindall bti at DSMZ.DE
Wed Sep 1 11:07:57 CDT 2004

At 04:01 1.9.2004 EDT, Faunaplan at AOL.COM wrote:
>Thanks to Richard and Brian for helping me understand your arguments!
>Since this is a repeated debate on "Registration", I also went back into the
>TAXACOM archives and found that you both have already posted extensively on
>these same issues (e.g., back in February 2003).
The system of registration (of names) in bacteriology was introduced in
1980 and, as you can see from earlier e-mails it hasn't changed!

>In this new round I especially liked the "kernel" and "layer" allegories in
>Richard's response. Such an idea of a more complex system would allow for the
>pre-requisite fundamental but neutral role of the Code and wouldn't preclude
>anything. Instead, open up chances for pioneer work like the one in
>Maybe the next (Bio?)Code could say something like "where Lists of
>Available/validly published Names have been adopted, new names are
>published only after they have been added; - i.e., as a first step,
>"Registration" not as a general rule for ALL taxa (like in bacteriology),
but a chance for
>a learning-by-doing process where Ichthyologists, for instance, could play a
>pioneer role...

To be fair the number of names is rather different in bacteriology and
botany or zoology. The answer may well be to break this down into smaller
sections in botany and zoology. Virology and bacteriology already indicate
where to find their "registered names".

>As for Brian's response: The term "Taxonomic Status" appears, for example, on
>the ITIS website in context with taxonomic judgment, so I just picked up your
>words "flagging the status of a name". But I could have seen in your earlier
>postings to TAXACOM that there is no reason to think that you are in favor of
>a "kernel" Registration that includes a baggage of taxonomic judgment.
>(And, as we all know, the term "valid" is a special stumbling stone for
>unambiguous communication among biologists: a validly published name in
zoology is
>called an "available" name, but an available name in zoology is not
>necessarily a valid name...).

It would be unfair to comment in detail, except to say that via the ICSP
Judicial Commission I have been in contact with those running lists such as
ITIS, Species 2000 and GBIF and I think the mesage about what
bacteriological lists contain has been understood. Again all these lists
are after "one species = one name", which by definition means taxonomic
interpretation. However, "taxonomic status" is something which you would
not find on a purely nomenclatural list - true, known synonyms or
illegitimate/not potentially valid names may be listed as such, but that
would be all.

>Best regards,
>Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany
Best wishes

* Dr.B.J.Tindall      E-MAIL bti at                           *
* DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH *
* Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany                *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 0 (general)                                    *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 224 (direct)                                   *
* Fax:  ++ 531 2616 418                                            *
*                                                                  *
* Homepage:                          *
* E-MAIL: contact at (general enquiries)                      *
*         sales at (sales)                                    *

More information about the Taxacom mailing list