[Taxacom] Do rogue taxonomists need rogue publishers?

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sun Jan 31 11:15:51 CST 2010

Yes, taxonomy is so a hypothesis, evidence driven science. Just think of
a bunch of null hypotheses that are address by 250 years of discovering
the worlds living things, classifying them along the lines of some
plausible natural process when guessable.

There is only one living thing.
The living things are not in groups or perceivable clusters.
Such clusters are not nested.
Names cannot be useful.
No natural processes can be proposed that account for particular
morphology or diversity or clusters.
There are no distribution patterns, or if there are, they cannot be
explained by natural processes.
More, more, more, etc. etc. etc.

Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe

I will also mention here that alpha-taxonomy (=documenting the world's
biodiversity before it disappears) is largely a descriptive science, and
not really much of an evidence based, hypothesis driven science. This is
not to belittle it - it is a perectly fine and worthwhile thing to do.
It has a hard time these days being funded, despite conservation and
environment issues getting lots of press ... odd!


More information about the Taxacom mailing list