nomenclature: identifying versus classifying

[Curtis Clark]

At 04:56 AM 10/15/00, Guido Mathieu wrote:
>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.

This brings us full circle to the beginning of this thread: can
nomenclature and classification be separated? Names in the Linnaean system
imply classification by their rank, but the only direct connection is at
the level of species, which must be classified into genera in order to have
names. Phylocode names imply that taxa are part of a classification, being
defined by what they include, but don't specify rank. On the other hand,
Phylocode has yet to deal with species.

 From an information science perspective, the complete separation of naming
and classifying is highly desirable. But humans use names most effectively
in a system of classification, either explicit or implicit. This thread has
dealt with the contrasting needs of phylogeneticists and other users of
classifications, but the contrast between the needs of information systems
and people is perhaps just as great.


--
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