any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Martin Spies]

Two replies of mine to messages in this thread were rejected by the
TAXACOM server yesterday, because it allows no more than six messages
per day from any individual listmember. The senders of these messages
(should) have received my replies already, but I am repeating them
below for anybody else who might be interested.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
G.B. Edwards wrote:
> Martin,
> I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said, but the problem still
> remains, as Chris pointed out, of flagging the change.  If you have a
> better suggestion than what seems to me a nice general indicator like
> Revised Status, I would be happy to hear it.

I won't claim to have worked this problem through to 'perfection', and
if I had then I still wouldn't be an authority whose suggestion could
pass as equivalent to a '(semi-)official' one.

The more I think about it, though, the less I - but again: that's just
me - like the term, at least in an abbreviated, uncommented-on
presentation, because not only the "status" part, but also the
"revised" touches on topics that call for precise definition. For
example, "revised" may suggest (to some readers) that the change in
status is the result of a thorough taxonomic revision, possibly not
only of, e.g., a single species being transferred, but also of the
respective pairs of species-groups, subgenera or genera it is
transferred between. Obviously, nothing like this can be guaranteed
for all works in which the term in Chris' broad sense would be applicable.

Offhand, please allow me to ask why the 'flagging' has to be done with
an abbreviated term resembling those sanctioned in the ICZN Code, and
thus misleadingly suggesting 'officiality'? Would it not suffice (for
proper representation in the ZOOLOGICAL RECORD, etc.) to include a
statement in the abstract that the species is, e.g., transferred back
to the genus it was originally described in, or even only that it is
being transferred from genus Aus to genus Bus? Statements like these
don't consume much printing space, and they are unambiguously
informative, whereas simply putting "stat. rev." won't be, unless an
(even more space-consuming) explanation for the term is provided as well.

But, like I wrote above: I don't claim to have all the answers, I just
try to find them by applying the scientific method if the latter is
applicable; and part of this procedure means to work from and build on
(and not sidestep or devalue) existing, commonly reproducible
standards of reference.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson wrote:
 > Again Martin tends to confuse taxonomy with nomenclature

Where's your evidence for this false accusation?

 > Within ONE taxonomy / classification, the rules of nomenclature do
 > state that there can be only one valid name for a taxon. BUT the
 > ICZN make it very clear in its preamble that "none [of its
 > provisions] restricts the freedom of taxonomic thought or action."
 > So, zoologists may differ on what is a valid taxon and, therefore,
 > valid name for a taxon may vary according its definition
 > [=circumscription in Botany].

That doesn't differ in the least from what I wrote. Surely, you don't
expect me or any other individual taxonomist to go schizophrenic and
accept as valid more than a single name, taxonomic definition or
circumscription at any given point in time?

 > And Martin thinks most recent means the best taxonomy which is
simply naive.

I wrote the exact opposite, e.g. in my reply to Paul Kirk's question.


So, with all due respect Chris, kindly read the other guy's messages
thoroughly before you go and misrepresent them in public.


Regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany