nomenclature: identifying versus classifying

[Guido at]

Richard Pyle wrote:

> It seems to me that what we need is a separate language tool; one that can
> be used primarily by phylogenetic systematists to communicate ideas about
> discrete nodes in their hypothesized relationships...
> The rest of the world's biologists can go on using Linnaean classification
they
> way they always have, to fulfill the needs this system has always
fulfilled,
> without suffering the trauma of cladistically-induced nomenclatural
> instability.

As long as we put "information" in the names we give to organisms, we have
to deal with the possible need to change those names whenever new
information pops up. Using Linnaean rules, PhyloCode rules, or other
nomenclatural rules can't prevent this.

The strict goal of applying an identification is that everyone in the world
would talk about the same organism when using that ID. Naming an organism
based on classifying principles (whatever these principles are phylogenetic
or not) is adding information. Because an ID should ideally never change but
on the other hand no one can guarantee information will be valid forever,
there is some contradiction in trying to put the two together.
In fact we deal with the same problem in specimen collections. When a
specimen enters the collection we usually give it a unique alphanumeric ID
with no intrinsic information about the specimen itself. All other
information (determination data, collecting data, bibliographical
references,...) is attached to that ID. So we already use systems where the
species binomials only have an information carrying function without an ID
function...

Dr. Guido Mathieu
Peperomia collection manager
Botanical Garden, State University Ghent (Belgium)
Peperomia mailing list moderator
www.egroups.com/group/peperomia