rankless nomenclature

[Barry Roth]

--- Abdulghafor Nawaz <nawaz at kacst.edu.sa> wrote:
> [...]

> Classification(s) can not be decoupled from
> nomenclature due to their interdependence. What
> would be classified, when the taxonomic units will
> not exist and the taxonomic units are provided by
> naming of taxa by the biologists/taxonomists who
> also determine the status of taxa in a
> classificatory system.

This statement appears to conflate the Thing (a taxon,
a biological unit) -- which is the entity classified
-- with the Name of the Thing (a word, or combination
of words, or alphanumeric string) -- which is a
designator that allows us to talk conveniently about
the Thing.  The present system encourages such
confusion; it is common, and no less a personage than
a member of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature once made the same mistake (talking about
taxon when he meant name) on another Internet list.

> The rate or frequency of name changes does not
> necessarily depend on phylogenetic relationships
> determined by micromorphological characters such as
> chromosome number, similar flavonoid or other
> chemical components etc.

Correct, but the rate will be lower (!) if the rules
do not require a name change to follow -- ipso facto
-- upon a revised taxonomy.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/