[Taxacom] Citation

igor pavlinov ipvl2008 at mail.ru
Tue Feb 7 01:44:33 CST 2017


Dear all,
 
as consideration of a particular question of nomenclatorial status of the above-family group names in zoology turned to discussion of relation between “past” and “present” of the nomenclature proper, I hope you won’t mind my adding a few comments on the latter.
I think, we should first divide pragmatics of application of particular rules to particular cases (or of particular names to particular taxa) and theoretical issues aimed at the problem of the content the current concepts of nomenclature. 
As far as the latter is concerned, it is evident from the evolutionary epistemology standpoint that elucidation of the origins of nomenclatorial concepts became of a prime importance (and of course interest). And going back to the history of the contemporary concepts (by close reading of respective original literature, and not but textbooks) use to uncover very interesting things.
For instance, presently dominating binomial nomenclature is usually being termed “linnaean” – but Linnaeus made himself very little to fix it. As a matter of fact, binomials had been used consistently long before him by such aristotelians as Cesalpino and Zaluzhansky. After them, nomenclature has been developing within the essentalist nomenclatorial concept according to which taxonomic names should reflect essential properties of species and genera. And Linnaeus himself developed just this concept (his most known predecessors was Morison, Rivinus, Turnefort), so he termed just the essentially treated names “nomina propria=legitima”, while using “nomina triviale” as but an auxiliary technical device. It was nominalist concept of nomenclature developed by both post- and anti-Linnaeans (among which Adanson was the first) that brought to domination the current binomial nomenclature, which is by no means a “linnaean” by its content and origin.
Is it interesting and importance? Yes – but only to those who are interested in the theory and “conceptual history” of the nomenclature. And I wonder if someone who studies and names particular taxa would worry if the nomenclature he/she applies is actually (historically) “linnaean”, “cesalpinian” or eventually “adansonian”.
What am I about? I don’t know exactly. Probably, about useful practice of taking “cutlets and flies separately”.
 
Igor

- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Leading Researcher
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
125009 Moscow 
Russia
http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm

>Вторник,  7 февраля 2017, 9:31 +03:00 от Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>:
>
>Despite Stephen's disinterest in the history of names, I still enjoy researching and reading it. If we enjoy what we do, it is not work.
>
>Maybe that's why I don't mind getting paid so little for it.
>
>BTW: Researching the past is not living in it.
>
>Neal
>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Geoffrey Read < gread at actrix.gen.nz > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> There were binominal names before Linnaeus, so it was something he
>> applied, rather than invented.
>>
>> It's a pity if you've got no interest in the history of science and naming
>> things.  To say it is nonsense is very harsh. For instance the Lifewatch
>> site showcased Aristotle last year, with some brief articles that are
>> worth a look through. Quote: "Names – such as ‘tetrapoda’ & ‘malacostraca’
>> - were first introduced by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago".
>>
>>  http://www.lifewatch.be/en/2016-news-aristotle
>>
>> We should credit our predecessors when appropriate - it's all incremental
>> knowledge bit by bit, and they were probably as intelligent as we are!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>> On Tue, February 7, 2017 4:45 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> With respect Geoff, I disagree rather strongly. If there is any sort of
>> informative scientific idea associated with the name, then fine, cite that
>>> idea (which is different to citing the name) but typically that is not
>> the
>>> case, and people are very inconsistent in the way that they cite this
>> stuff. For example, Linnaeus can hardly be credited as the discoverer or
>> inventor of (the concept of) human beings, he just invented a system of
>> naming and gave humans a name. Given that 99% of all species on Earth are
>>> obscure and of little direct interest to anyone, tracking their
>> individual
>>> history in science back into antiquity is a waste of time. Taxonomists
>> are
>>> already widely criticised for "living in the past", and this nonsense
>> really doesn't help! There are far too many species out there badly
>> needing documentation to worry about tracking long defunct ideas about
>> known species. The only point in author/date for names is for priority in
>>> the case of synonymy and for finding original descriptions (these may be
>> useful for lower taxa, but not for higher taxa, i.e. what use is the
>> "original description" for Arachnida? Arachnida in what sense? The modern
>>> sense, or some long defunct sense?)
>>> Stephen
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> On Tue, 7/2/17, Geoff Read < gread at actrix.gen.nz > wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
>>> To: "Stephen Thorpe" < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
>>> Cc: "Jan Bosselaers" < dochterland at telenet.be >, "Taxacom Mailinglist"
>>> < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >
>>> Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017, 3:21 PM
>>> Stephen,
>>> Less strictly, there's
>>> tracking and acknowledging priority for any idea in
>>> science.
>>> It is
>>> true the Zoo code isn't interested in authorship of
>>> names above
>>> family (but it does have a few
>>> articles to 'regulate' the form and scope
>>> of those names, see art, 1.2.2).  However, we
>>> taxonomists are, or should
>>> be, still
>>> interested in the history of those names, and may sometimes
>>> want
>>> to indicate where they arose by means
>>> of citations (in the general sense
>>> of
>>> science citations - a link to a publication) to attribute
>>> the various
>>> concepts to authors, if the
>>> situation requires it.
>>> The
>>> concept name might even be pre-Linnaean, but it's still
>>> of interest to
>>> some of us to know where it
>>> arose, and go and have a look at the context -
>>> this might have been the purpose of the
>>> original question.  Linnaeus
>>> himself was
>>> just building on existing knowledge and name usages.  A lot
>>> of
>>> his content he lifted from others -
>>> usually acknowledged.
>>> Geoff
>>> On Tue,
>>> February 7, 2017 10:26 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>>> Jan,
>>>> Trust me, by far
>>> the most sensible approach is to keep it simple and
>>>> ignore redundant complexity like citations
>>> for names above the family
>>>> group in
>>> zoology. As I said, nothing is gained by use of such
>>> citations.
>>>> Certain people will insist
>>> on using such citations, probably because they
>>>> think it "looks more
>>> scientific", but it is pointless and meaningless!
>>>> Stephen
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> On Tue, 7/2/17, Jan Bosselaers < dochterland at telenet.be >
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Â  Subject:
>>> Re: [Taxacom] Citation
>>>> Â  To:
>>> "Stephen Thorpe" < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
>>>> Â  Cc: "Tony Rees" < tonyrees49 at gmail.com >,
>>> "Taxacom Mailinglist"
>>>> < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >
>>>> Â  Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017,
>>> 10:23 AM
>>>> Â
>>> Stephen, Tony,
>>>> Â  I
>>> guess this fact explains why
>>>> Â  one
>>> sometimes also reads “Arachnida Lamarck,
>>> 1801�.
>>>> Â  Apparently nobody makes
>>> a fuss about this situation, but it
>>>> Â
>>> is confusing indeed.
>>>> Â  Best,
>>>> Â  Jan
>>>> Â  > Op 6 feb. 2017, om 22:08 heeft
>>> Stephen
>>>> Â  Thorpe < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
>>>> Â  het volgende geschreven:
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  > It
>>> causes problems and confusion for no
>>>> Â
>>> gain.
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â
>>>> "Just
>>>> Â  like a name at any
>>> regulated rank, the citation indicates
>>>> Â  who erected the name, ..."
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>> Actually, no! The citation indicates who
>>>> Â  first erected the name in a Code
>>> compliant way, but if it is
>>>> Â  a
>>> non-regulated name, then there is no such thing as Code
>>>> Â  compliance for that name! So, we get a
>>> pointless situation
>>>> Â  whereby names
>>> above family-group (in zoology) are just
>>>> Â  cited, for no particular reason, to
>>> whoever first published
>>>> Â  the name in
>>> more or less the way it is currently used,
>>>> Â  whereas, for regulated names, the
>>> citation indicates who
>>>> Â  first erected
>>> the name in a Code compliant way, and this is
>>>> Â  only really important because of the
>>> Principle of Priority
>>>> Â  (which does not
>>> apply to unregulated names).
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  > Stephen
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> Â  > On Tue, 7/2/17, Tony Rees < tonyrees49 at gmail.com >
>>>> Â  wrote:
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  > Subject:
>>>> Â  Re:
>>> [Taxacom] Citation
>>>> Â  > To:
>>> "Jan
>>>> Â  Bosselaers" < dochterland at telenet.be >
>>>> Â  > Cc: "Stephen Thorpe"
>>> < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >,
>>>> Â  "Taxacom Mailinglist" < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >
>>>> Â  > Received: Tuesday, 7 February,
>>> 2017, 10:00
>>>> Â  AM
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  > Hello Jan,
>>>> Â  > Stephen et al.,
>>>> Â  > I do
>>>> Â  not
>>>> Â  > have a problem with citing
>>> authors
>>>> Â  for ranks above family,
>>>> Â  > as per the
>>>> Â
>>> example at
>>>>  http://www.eu-nomen.eu/portal/taxon.php?GUID=urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1300
>>>> Â  > . Although the zoological Code does
>>> not
>>>> Â  regulate these, it
>>>> Â  > does not therefore
>>>> Â  mean they cannot be used in this
>>> manner,
>>>> Â  > if zoologists so desire.
>>> Just like a name
>>>> Â  at any regulated
>>>> Â  > rank, the citation
>>>> Â  indicates who erected the name, not
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  necessarily
>>> its current circumscription.
>>>> Â  >
>>> Best regards - Tony
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  Tony
>>>> Â  > Rees,
>>> New South Wales,
>>>> Â
>>> Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>> On 7 February 2017
>>>> Â  at
>>>> Â  > 07:24, Jan Bosselaers < dochterland at telenet.be >
>>>> Â  > wrote:
>>>> Â  >
>>> Thanks
>>>> Â  > Stephen, for pointing
>>> this out to me! Much
>>>> Â  appreciated.
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  > Best
>>> wishes (the
>>>> Â  best wishes in Belgium -
>>> it’s true),
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  > Jan
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> From: Taxacom
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.
>>>> Â  > ku.edu> on behalf of
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> Stephen Thorpe
>>>> Â  < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> Sent: 06
>>>> Â  February 2017 19:56
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >> To:
>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>>>> Â  > Jan Bosselaers
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >> Strictly
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> speaking, there
>>>> Â  is no
>>> "citation" for that
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  taxon
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >> name,
>>>> Â  as
>>> names for classes are not regulated by any
>>>> Â  > code of
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >> nomenclature.
>>> Attribution of Arachnida
>>>> Â  to Cuvier
>>> 1812
>>>> Â  > is
>>>> Â
>>>> Â  >>
>>> meaningless and potentially rather
>>>> Â
>>> misleading given
>>>> Â  > how
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>> taxonomic
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â
>>>>>    concepts change over
>>>> Â  time.
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >> Stephen
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >>
>>>> Â  >
>>>> Â  >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years,
>>> 1987-2017.
>>> --
>>> Geoffrey B.
>>> Read, Ph.D.
>>> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>>>  gread at actrix.gen.nz
>>
>>
>> --
>> Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
>> 8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
>> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>>  gread at actrix.gen.nz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>
>This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list