[Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tue Jun 19 02:37:53 CDT 2012
Nico has put the issue quite elegantly:
"The inference gains that come with these names/causal properties associations (seem to have, historically) outweigh(ed) the costs of tracking changes."
It seems to me we have two alternative ways of naming things. Once we've coined a name, either:
1. names don't change when notions of relationship change, hence we can't (necessarily) infer relationships from name, or
2. names change when notions of relationship change, hence we can infer relationships from names
Option 1 means names are stable (great for information retrieval) but don't tell you much about relationships (indeed, may be positively misleading if read literally).
Option 2 means names are (usually) informative about relationships at some level, but are liable to change at any time.
Option 1 means we can't use names to convey relationship, so we need some other way to do this (e.g., phylogenetic trees)
Option 2 means we can't retrieve all we know about a taxon by searching on a single name, so we need a way to track all name changes over time (e.g., a global database of synonyms).
Taxonomic practise follows option 2, but without a database of synonyms. Arguably in the past option 1 would have been difficult to implement given the varied notion of what "related" might mean. Given that the last few decades have seen "related" become fairly explicitly defined in terms of evolutionary history, might option 1 not be worth reconsidering?
Professor of Taxonomy
Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
More information about the Taxacom