Separating Nomenclature and Classification

[Curtis Clark]

At 09:06 AM 10/7/00, Susan B. Farmer wrote:
>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.

You've gotten straight to the heart of one of the arguments for a rankless
classification. The binomial, the heart of the system, contains a
classification, whether we want it to or not, so that nomenclature and
classification are structurally linked, at that point only. In an ideal
(for the purposes of separation, not necessarily use) system, nomenclature
would only deal with the application of names to taxa (in the simplest
sense of "groups of organisms"), and classification would arrange the
groups, hence the names, into a hierarchy.

Another factor that exacerbates all this is that all taxa of higher rank
than species are typified by the types of species (to the extent that they
are typified at all), but infraspecific taxa have their own types (and with
the exception of autonyms, their types are never used at higher levels for
any purposes at all).

Humans usually handle naming and grouping as part of the same process.
Computers work best with systems in which naming and grouping are
completely separate operations. Implicit in the human approach is that
changing the groups will at least to an extent change the names.


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu