[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Jul 31 23:14:55 CDT 2010


> The split here isn't between molecular and non-molecular taxonomy, it's between 
>Code-valid and provisional taxonomy.

No, no, no! That (Code-valid and provisional taxonomy) is a false dichotomy! It 
is confusing nomenclatural with taxonomic issues. There are two distinct 
dichotomies here:

(1) Code compliant vs. noncompliant nomenclature

(2) provisional vs. ??? (nonprovisional) taxonomy

Clearly, we want Code compliant nomenclature across the board

As for (2), my point was and is that all taxonomy is provisional to some extent, 
and the traditional system of Linnean taxonomy and nomenclature handles that 
just fine, so we don't need "candidate species"

A few people (like arachnologist David Blest, for example) actually gave names 
to things explicitly as "provisional n.sp.", but this was a mistake that only 
served to cause confusion

Stephen


 



________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>; Stephen Thorpe 
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sun, 1 August, 2010 4:02:51 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy


Bob wrote: 

> The split here isn't between molecular and non-molecular 
> taxonomy, it's between Code-valid and provisional taxonomy.

That's *exactly* the issue, as I see it.  And it's *exactly* the issue that
the "morpho-species" folks are dealing with as well.

Rich


      


More information about the Taxacom mailing list