nomenclature: identifying versus classifying

[Richard Jensen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Curtis Clark wrote:

> At 12:00 PM 10/15/00, Richard Jensen wrote:
> >But, because the index numbers are sequentially applied, they
> >automatically represent a hierarchy (usually the sequence is a
> >chronological sequence based on when each record was created) and do
> >provide information about the records (i.e., the order of entry).
>
> Okay, I give up. A list of numbers applied sequentially to items more or
> less as they are encountered is equal in informativeness, in every way, to
> the Linnaean hierarchy. I guess my first mistake was to assume than the
> stuff we do as taxonomists actually mattered.

Did I say that?  All I pointed out was that even the "names" in a
database, in which the name is a record number and nothing else, convey
some information.  My point is that names without reference to other names
(i.e., some system of order) exist in an information vacuum and therefore
have no meaning.  I never meant to imply that the information described
above was in any sense equivalent to the considerably greater information
content of the Linnean hierachy, lthough I have to admit that sometimes
it looks as if some taxonomist simply applied a name to everything they
encountered ;-)

Richard J. Jensen      |   E-MAIL: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Dept. of Biology       |   TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674
Saint Mary's College   |   FAX: 219-284-4716
Notre Dame, IN  46556  |