Real taxa => Ranking

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

Well, isn't the word "objective" a major problem itself? How about
substituting the word "useful"? I think Don Colless touched on this a moment
ago.



______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180
Fax: 314-577-9595
Websites
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/index.htm
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:02 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Real taxa => Ranking


> Assigning higher taxonomic rank will *always* be subjective,
> because the higher rankings are *constructs* of *humans* attempting to
> indicate some level of evolutionary relationship.  The key item here is
> that *humans* are involved in the process of naming, so it can't
> be objective!!

As you said, I think most taxonomists/systematists would agree with this.
The point of contention seems to be whether the same statement applies to
species, subpecies, and other "lower" taxonomic ranks.  I have several times
challenged this list to persuade me that there is *any* taxonomic rank that
can be thought of as objective.  Although there have been some very
interesting (and spirited!) discussions, my challenge has gone unmet.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html