Separating Nomenclature and Classification (use of rank the rank

[Doug Yanega]

Richard Jensen wrote:

>I
>don't see how a functional system of nomenclature can exist without
>reference to a classification or vice-versa.

As Curtis Clark already hinted, "rankless" classification advocates are
suggesting precisely this sort of thing. Effectively, you *could* have,
say, "Species 71456812" as your taxon name, and "simply" show or make
reference to a cladogram to explain where it fits in your classification.
The name conveys no information, and doesn't need to, by design - that's
what the cladogram is for. If you find the idea of not being able to place
a taxon into any frame of reference unless it comes accompanied with a
cladogram difficult to accept, well, welcome to the club. ;-)
Yes, I realize that replacing names with numbers is not an idea with many
(if any) supporters, so people should always have some (archaic) frame of
reference even if the rankless advocates win out, but in a rankless scheme
there really is no *effective* difference between a name and a number.

Peace,


Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
           http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82