[Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing hypotheses & not real things"
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Sep 2 15:28:21 CDT 2013
The problem won't go away by creation of a new system of nomenclature (which I advise against), not unless we want to throw out 250 yrs worth of accumulated biological knowledge about named taxa! A system change would only make things easier from its inception, but we would still have to make sense of everything which came before ...
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tuesday, 3 September 2013 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing hypotheses & not real things"
On 2013-09-02 11:38 AM, Dan Lahr wrote:
> I do realize that this analogy stretches the current situation in taxonomy,
> because along with Mendeleev's introduction of the periodic table was
> associated with a major paradigm shift (to which he immensely contributed)
> of using atomic weights to classify elements.
> Well, we have had the paradigm shift some decades ago (Hennig), but have
> not had the associated change in nomenclature. The dual nature of genera
> will eventually have to come to an end, as it is a relict from a time when
> species names reflected the classification thoroughly. This is not the
> case anymore.
The paradigm shift was Darwin, and the idea that higher-level
classification reflects something in nature rather than an artificial
"system of convenience". Hennig simply affirmed that the "something" was
Fred Schueler reminds us that “It’s ironic that the anarchy of ‘descent
with modification by natural selection’ should give rise to the only
really important or useful natural hierarchical arrangement we know of.”
Linnaeus was attempting to distinguish the individual species created by
God, and yet his system has worked for 250 years.
It's important only to a historian of science which of the four elements
were involved in the metal mercury. But biologists even centuries ago
recognized units of the natural world that we still find useful. It's
true that I can't pick up a work from 1870 and be secure in recognizing
the names of species, but there are nomenclators to help me with that. I
can definitely be confident in recognizing names in a work from 1970.
If we make a major change in nomenclature, we will need nomenclators for
everything (most people on this list agree that is a noble goal, even if
a few think it is impractical), and we'll need a list of names in
current use (the bacteriologists have been there for a while, and the
other codes are coming around). These are *prerequisites* for a
fundamental change in nomenclature, lest it throw us into the dark ages
of redescribing everything. The bacteriologists were successful in
making such a change (although many would argue it doesn't go far
enough), but there's a lot of work left to be done for everyone else.
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
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