Aff., etc., continued

[John McNeill]

> John McNeill writes that I am completely wrong?  In what sense.
> Am I wrong in stating that a discipline such as taxonomy needs
> well-defined rules and procedures?  Am I wrong in trying to clarify
> what is meant by aff. or cf.?

No, not completely wrong.  Of course taxomomy needs well-defined rules and
procedures, but there is absolutely no point in seeking precision
where historically there has been none.  I think the past few days of
debate have clarified fully how imprecise aff. and cf. ARE.  Define new
terms as Stephen Bentivenga suggests or use a ? as Jim Croft would - but
better still just leave Barry Roth's beautiful 21st century perspective as
the last word.

John McNeill