[Taxacom] Why stability?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Apr 28 18:32:05 CDT 2015


Richard: 

But genera have arbitrary boundaries, at least in part. Lumping vs. splitting is entirely subjective, independently of any phylogenetic considerations (such as paraphyly). We could have 1 genus for all birds, for example, and it would be a monophyletic genus.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 29/4/15, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Nico Franz" <nico.franz at asu.edu>
 Received: Wednesday, 29 April, 2015, 2:51 AM
 
 Binomials can have a
 scientific basis for the genus part. 
 
 If one can identify a dissilient genus
 See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267777178_A_FRAMEWORK_FOR_POST-PHYLOGENETIC_SYSTEMATICS_%28Online_Version_Complete%29
 
 And http://phytoneuron.net/2014Phytoneuron/80PhytoN-MonophylyPart3.pdf
 Then one can have a scientific, testable
 concept of both species (as epithet) and genus (first part
 of binomial). This enhances stability in names.
 
 
 
 -------
 Richard H. Zander
 Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd.
 – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110 – USA
 richard.zander at mobot.org
 
 Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
 and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
 
 
 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
 Sent: Monday,
 April 27, 2015 9:11 PM
 To: TAXACOM; Nico
 Franz
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why
 stability?
 
 As I'm sure
 Rod Page would agree (or at least I think he would!), one of
 the main issues here is the interpretation of binomials for
 species. It retrospect, species names may have better been
 uninomial. The fact that the next level up (genus) is part
 of the species name causes all sorts of problems.
 Identifiers should be arbitrary (but euphonious and
 mnemonic). If not, instability results from disagreements
 over the implied meanings. I think I have heard Rod suggest
 that we should stick with original combinations! That would
 solve the particular problem, but nobody else is going to go
 with that idea! Replacing names with LSIDs doesn't work
 (neither euphonious nor mnemonic), but changing names in
 response to competing more or less supported phylogenetic
 hypotheses just leads to runaway instability. There is no
 solution. All we can do is to muddle on ...
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 28/4/15, Nico Franz <nico.franz at asu.edu>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: [Taxacom]
 Why stability?
  To: "TAXACOM"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 28 April, 2015, 12:47 PM
  
  http://taxonbytes.org/thoughts-why-stability-in-nomenclature-and-at-what-cost/
  
     I'd be interested
 in knowing if any
  scholarly works (I cite
 Atran)
  support this. And other comments.
  
  Cheers, Nico
 
 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
  
  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
  
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list