[Taxacom] manuscript name question

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 11 00:19:44 CDT 2015

I'm not sure how Mike thinks that something "solid" can be built from crumbly bricks?

On Sun, 11/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 1:15 PM
 This thought is
 philosophical, and cannot be absolutely correct, but I 
 think this conversation has moved into Talmudic
 debate.  These tiny 
 points ignore why we have the Code.  The Code is there 
 so that we know what name to put on what
 species so that we have a solid 
 means of
 communication about that entity, and that is really the only
 important test.  Does anyone have a doubt
 that if you catch that fly, 
 you will have
 trouble putting the correct name on it?  The answer seems
 clearly to me to be I would be able to,
 even as a non-dipterist.  Only 
 if someone
 has trouble in that activity does delving into the bowels of
 the Code become necessary. So, it seems all
 this stuff is really angels 
 dancing on

More information about the Taxacom mailing list