[Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing hypotheses & not real things"

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Mon Sep 2 03:25:04 CDT 2013

From: "Fred Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:53 PM
> * that's what we proposed in 1972 - my point was that it would look like 
> it carried information. The point of the transition from polynomial to 
> binomial names was mnemonic - and a transition to uninominal practice 
> would still preserve the appearance of binominalism - nobody would be 
> able to tell that Rana-pipiens and Rana-aurora were now in different 
> genera - though on the other hand one could have a convention of putting 
> a changed generic name in brackets after the uninominal name so that 
> they'd be written as Rana-pipiens [Lithobates] and Rana-aurora - so 
> maybe my objection isn't as cogent as I thought it was.

Linnaeus put many conifers in the genus Pinus, resulting in the 
name Pinus abies. Given that there is universal agreement that 
this tree does not belong among the pines, but among the 
spruces (Picea), and that this agreement has existed for a very 
long time, the combination Picea abies is quite economical and 
quite informative. The idea of using "Pinus-abies [Picea]" does 
not appeal at all.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list