Key to 10 species requirement

[Gregor Hagedorn]

Joseph E. Laferriere wrote:

> 1) A philosophical question: do recommendations belong
> in the ICBN at all? The whole idea of a "Code" is that if
> represent a quasi-legal set of mandates that everyone is
> required to follow. You could fill it with thousands of
> recommendations, but would this add anything to the science?
> Think of an analogy with civil law. If the parliament
> passes a law saying "It is strongly recommended that people
> stop at stop signs" but does not make it mandatory, enforceable
> by law, it means nothing. Putting it into the legal code
> is a waste of ink.

In my opinion, notes and recommendations in a taxonomic codes serve
two purposes: a) they clarify the intention of certain articles.
Probably no wording will ever be so clear that it can not be
misinterpreted. An example, or a note can avoid such
misinterpretations. b) Provisions for "good taxonomic practice" are
helpful. While the first avoids misinterpretation of the code, the
latter can avoid misinterpretation of the taxonomic work itself. I
understand them as: We would hope that everybody would do this, but
we realize that there are exceptions where this recommendation can
not be fullfilled.

> 2) The statement "simply picking just 10
> random species would obviously make a fool of her- or himself. Most
> people try to avoid that..."   The problem is that some
> people really are fools. I have run into more than one
> incompetent person in science, such as a boss I had a few
> years ago who deliberately misspelled scientific names in
> his database. There are also people who are intelligent
> but inexperienced in the subtle nuances of the ICBN:
> grad students, people from poorer countries lacking proper
> education, etc.

The requirement is to write a key, which makes it slightly more
difficult to publish, but is (in my opinion) very helpful to taxonomy
in itself. That is, it is not a requirement making it more difficult
for the sake of it.

Probably nothing can completely prohibit foolish taxonomy. We can
only make it a little bit less frequent.

> 3) In any legal or quasi-legal code, one must be
> absolutely clear in what one means. If you use a term
> such as "key" you need to define it. This is both so
> that the person writing a key knows what is expected,
> and so that the reader can be absolutely certain whether
> or not the writer has met the requirements.

I agree. I tried to do this by clarifying the options of dichotomous,
multichotomous, or synoptical keys. This implies, of course that
these terms are sufficiently defined, which is probably difficult.
How should one phrase it more clearly?


Gregor

Gregor Hagedorn
Inst. f. Mikrobiologie, BBA     Net: G.Hagedorn at bba.de
Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19          Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 or -2221
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203

Often wrong but never in doubt!