Separating Nomenclature and Classification (use of rank the rank

[Susan B. Farmer]

*snip*

>> Other links (to other
>> infraspecific names, to infra generic names, or to names above
>> genus) purely convey classification information. This data SHOULD
>> NOT be included in the nomenclatural side (even ascribing a name
>> to a family), but represented in the classification side of the
>> database.
>
>IPNI tries hard to avoid making statements of taxonomy and
>classification (even though this is what most users want) because the
>tasks involved would be completely overwhelming.  But simply assigning
>genera to families so we can find them is taxonomic and classificatory
>so it is difficult to be totally pure in this area.
>

This is something that Ihave a problem with -- and I know that it's
*just* a philosophical one; but at its heart, (at least the way I see it)
any name is a classification even if it's just _Rosa alba_ because you're
classifying _alba_ as a member of the genus _Rosa_ and you're placing it
at the rank of species.  It's further classified by being a member of
the Rosaceae.  I must be just dense, but I don't see why that's any
different than claiming that _Rosa alba_ var. _longipetiolata_ forma
_thornless_ is a classification.

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer at goldsword.com
Botany Department, University of Tennessee
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium