Re. rankless nomenclature

[Tony Irwin]

Although I suspect this thread may be drawing to a close, I would like to
offer what may be a naive parallel for consideration.

One of the reasons why the Linnaean system has survived for so long is
because are familiar with its premise and style. I refer to the fact that
most of us use a structured binomial (ocassionally multi-nomial) system for
naming ourselves. The use of family-name with personal-name (sometimes in
reverse order) is how we refer to ourselves and everyone around us. Sure, we
occasionally make mistakes with homonyms, but these are usually amusing
rather than serious.

Names do change (through marriage or deed-poll) and can cause embarassment
and confusion if we are unaware of the changes. But the point is that we
cope. Either because we are familiar enough with the subject and his/her
relations, so that we know about the name change, or because we have access
to electoral registers, marriage registers, etc.

So it is with Linnaean nomenclature. We get it right most of the time and we
cope. Linnaean names are easy to remember if we are familiar with a group.
If we're not familiar, there are publications we can use to help us.

I have no problem with the activities of family history scholars. Much of
what they unearth is interesting and I'm pleased to learn about my
ancestors. If they want to call me "Tony, son of Joseph, son of John, son of
William (1860-1912)", that's fine.
But to my friends, family and colleagues I'm still... (and think I always
will be)...
Tony Irwin
Curator of Natural History, Norfolk Museums Service,
The Shirehall, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 3JQ, England
Tel: +44(0)1603 493642
Fax: +44(0)1603 493623
E-mail: tony.irwin at btinternet.com