Taxonomy, art or science?

[Joe Laferriere]

> From:    "Yuri P. Nekrutenko" <YPNekrut at MBAT.FREENET.KIEV.UA>
> Subject: Re: Taxonomy: Art or Science
>
>           Taxonomy is mostly a science though it  better
>      operates with talented people involved. Nomenclature  is a  tool, or a
>      language,  or  a  grammar  of  Taxonomy (and  not  only  taxonomy: any
>      subjest to be identified is first to be named, and then placed into  a
>      conceptual hierarchy to study  it).  And all above  is of the  humans,
>      for the humans, by the humans, not of, for nor by  a machine  (even as
>      intelligent as a computer).

In its historical origins, nomenclature and taxonomic classification are
extensions and formalizations of European folk classifications. Every
language has a naming system vaguely similar to our formal system.
Ethnobotanists use the term "folk-genus" to describe the lowest level at
which a language has a separate word. Thus, in English, "oak" and "maple"
are examples of folk-genera. In order to distinguish between
folk-species within a folk-genus, an adjective must be used because no
single word is available; hence, "red oak" and "sugar maple." Latin had
the same type of arrangement. All Linnaeus did was to take the ancient
Latin system and try to universalize it.
   Most languages tend to be splitters when useful plants and animals are
involved, and lumpers regarding noneconomic taxa. I understand that
Tagalog (in the Philippines) has 26 different words for different strains
of rice. This is reflected in formal "scientific"  classification as well,
despite numerous protestations to the contrary.  The Romans used a wide
variety of medicinal and culinary herbs in the family Apiaceae, and had
different words for each. Linneaus simply took those ancient terms and
made formal genera out of them, simply because good Classical Latin terms
were already available and in common use in the botanical community.
Today, many of those same culinary and medicinal herbs are still
considered members of monospecific genera. Useless plants like Carex did
not have separate terms in Classical Latin, so Linnaeus followed ancient
precedent in leaving them lumped together.
   So, as to the question of whether taxonomy and nomenclature are
scientific, the answer is an unfortunate no. To be truly scientific,
something should be such that a perfectly logical outside observer (e.g.
one from the planet Vulcan) would reach exactly the same conclusions as we
humble humans. This is not true.
    As an aside, when I was at Harvard, some coworkers and I were trying
to come up with a name for a new Southeast Asian species of Carex. The
only name we could think of not already in Index Kewensis was "C.
nonsaskatchewanensis," meaning "not from Saskatchewan."