[Taxacom] BioNames and others names

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sun Jun 2 03:16:30 CDT 2013

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 6:43 AM

> Stephen is wrong about "Lots".  But I don't blame him.  The reason it 
> seems like "lots" is, ultimately, the same reason almost no two people
> agree on what a "taxon name" is. [...]

This must be a good candidate for "Most Gross Exaggeration
of the Year". There will be wide agreement (likely a
comfortable majority) that the scientific name of a taxon,
in the case of a species is the binomial / binomen,
or in the case of a lower ranking taxon the trinomial / trinomen.

For zoologists there are some points of confusion:
* the status of the "specific name" / "subspecific name"
* not all "scientific names" are "available names"
* the question if separate orthographical variants are
   separate scientific names
But under the ICNafp there is no confusion on these
points, so these are strictly localized sources of confusion.

It looks to me that the big real source of confusion is 
(and remains) that taxonomy is (and remains) dynamic, 
and that there are so many who claim that there is only 
one single correct taxonomic point of view (namely, theirs).
* * *

> The exact same thing is happening in taxon-name-database 
> sphere.  To an outside observer, it might appear that what
> Catalog of Life, and Encyclopedia of Life, and GBIF, and 
> Bionames, and ION, and Global Names Architecture, and 
> ZooBank, and IPNI, and Tropicos, and Index Fungorum, 
> and any of dozens of other nomenclators, species indexers, 
> checklist-makers, etc. are all "doing the same thing".

Of these, only Tropicos appears to be mapping different
taxonomic usages. 

(And yes, I must admit that I don't see any real differences 
between the 'aggregators', except in the interface they use, 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list