[Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing hypotheses & not real things"
paulbut at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 2 04:57:09 CDT 2013
Your point makes sense.
"Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl> 於 2013年9月2日 16:30 寫道：
> 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.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom