[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Feb 20 03:03:08 CST 2012

> As to point 4), we have been over this. Synonyms are not necessarily
> and in botany at least, 'lexical variants' definitely are not names (I
know there
> is an ongoing debate in zoology if they are names, but this looks silly to
> So, point 4) is incompatible with point 1), unless one were to adopt the
> 'biodiversity informatician's' definition of "a name", in which case this
> question does not really belong on this list.

This is a bit misleading.  There is as much diversity among "biodiversity
informaticians" about what is meant by "a name", as there is among
taxonomists.  (Actually, there is probably slightly more diversity among
taxonomists than there is among biodiversity informaticians; but in both
groups, there is a great deal of diversity of meanings for "a name".)

> It is as if the 'biodiversity informaticians', having promised that their
> new discipline was going to bring splendid results by applying special,
> developed, tools (thus cutting corners, over the stodgy traditional
> then went about it in a topsy-turvy fashion and are now complaining that
> taxonomy is all topsy-turvy?

Hmmm.... that's a pretty skewed perspective of reality as well, in my
opinion.  But I don't have time to respond in further detail.


This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list