RSNs: The Kinman System obviates the need

[Ken Kinman]

    Lyn wrote:
>A few weeks back there was a suggestion on Taxacom that RSNs be
permitted,and written into, the ICBN.  As there was no response, I
gather that all would seem to be in favour.
******************************************************************
                         MY RESPONSE:
     I personally do not see a real need for RSNs, because I believe the
Kinman System completely obviates any need for them.  In my 1994
classification of organisms, I completely eliminated all intermediate
categories, and maintained formal names only for the Linnean categories
of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, etc.
     The alphanumeric coding system that I used to replace intermediate
categories is so synergistically and heuristically designed, that it not
only makes classification more stable and useful, but will also break
down the former barriers to a universally acceptable classification
system that can be used by both traditional eclecticists and the
"stricter" cladists.  The Kinman System truly unites the best from both
eclecticism and cladism.
     Unfortunately, like the Hatfields and McCoys, the cladists and
eclecticists continue to fight each other, and refuse to believe that
this can be resolved.  I continue to find it to be an intransigent
standoff, and the fact that it is totally unnecessary is extremely
frustrating.                             --------Ken Kinman
             www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5074




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com