group vs catagory

[Wilbert Hetterscheid]

> Taxacomers,
>
> Before the term "culton" becomes a confused thing in all your eminent
> minds, may I try to put it simple:
>
> Taxon is a general term covering systematic groups of (wild?)
> organisms. Categories available to classify taxa are e.g. species,
> family etc.
>
> The "system" in general use to create the systematic groups of (wild?)
> organisms is based on evolutionary theory.
>
> Culton is a general term covering systematic groups of cultivated
> plants (possibly animals too, and what have you). Categories available
> to classify culta are e.g. cultivar and cultivar-group.
>
> The "system" in use to create systematic groups of cultivated plants
> (etc.) acc. to cultonomists, is non-evolutionary, user-driven and
> more.......
>
> How the "cultonomic" system works (and its philosophy) is traceable in
> the literature. John MacNeill already referred earlier to one of the
> more seminal papers.
>
> Wilbert Hetterscheid (cultonomist)
>
>
> ----------
> From:         John McNeill[SMTP:johnm at ROM.ON.CA]
> Reply To:     John McNeill
> Sent:         maandag 14 december 1998 15:48
> To:   Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM
> Subject:      Re: group vs catagory
>
> Kipling Will makes a valid point and I see that I was unclear in my
> explanation of "culton" relative to "taxon".  The word "taxon" is
> indeed
> a replacement for "taxonomic group" (and "culton" can be thought of as
> a
> replacement for "cultivated taxonomic group"), but I should have said
> that *a* taxon (my emphasis) is "any taxonomic group" -- e.g. "the
> white-flowered plants are not generally recognized nowadays as a
> distinct taxon and instead are treated as a culton, being assigned to
> the cultivar, 'Alba'"   The terms "taxon" and "culton" thus allow one
> to
> discuss a taxonomic group without specifying any particular taxonomic
> (or "cultonomic") category -- the white-flowered plants above, might
> have been named in the past as "var. _alba_", "forma _alba_" etc. etc.
> John McNeill
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>       John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum,
>       100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C6, Canada.
>       Telephone and fax number:  416-586-5744
>       e-mail: johnm at rom.on.ca
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: group vs catagory
> Author:  Kipling Will <kww4 at CORNELL.EDU> at Internet
> Date:    14/12/98 9:18 AM
>
>
> Since there seems to be a good many readers interested in precise use
> of
> terms, I wanted to point
> out that in a recent post the following was written:
>
>
> <Just as "taxon" means "taxonomic group", and is the term to cover all
> such, e.g.
> <species, genera, familiae etc.,
>
>
> The terms group and category are confused. A taxonomic group is just
> that,
> a group (with
> more or less definite boundaries) such as Pterostichus stygicus,
> Pterostichus, Pterostichini or Carabidae. A taxonomic category is the
> level, e.g., species, genus, tribe or family. No matter how you define
> a
> genus group, the genus category is a level between family and species
> that
> contains one or more species. See Blackwelder, 1967,  _Taxonomy; a
> text and
> reference book_. New York, Wiley. , for many clear examples as to why
> this
> is important. Also, I would recommend this reference to anyone
> interested
> in systematics/taxonomy. The text includes issues regarding the kinds
> of
> types and the process of naming etc. Of course some things have
> changed in
> the last 22 years, but the notions of philosophy and terminology
> remain
> potent. If more people would read his clear discussions on many topics
> we
> would see fewer errors of this type in journals such as Systematic
> Biology
> and Cladistics.
>
> have a great day
> kip
>
>