any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Martin,

> I'm afraid that by now this discussion is going off on too many
> tangents; I apologize but won't have many more hours to set aside for
> that.

Likewise.

> > it was not at all self-understood (to me, anyway) that your use of
> > "valid" was restricted to a single author at a single point in
> time.  I got
> > the distinct impression from your earlier note that if Smith says that
> > species "aus" belongs in genus "Aus"; and Jones says that species "aus"
> > belongs in genus "Bus", that only one of them can be
> "technically" correct.
>
> Sorry, but where's the difference or contradiction there?

Case 1:
Smith (2000) records name as "Aus aus" on page 150.
Smith (2000) records name as "Bus aus" in caption of figure of same on page
152.

Same author (Smith), same point in time (same publication).  He technically
cannot silmutaneously regard the correct name as both "Aus aus" and "Bus
aus".

Case 2:
Smith (2000) records name as "Aus aus" consistently.
Jones (2001) records name as "Bus aus" consistently.

Smith thinks he is correct.

Jones thinks she is correct.

The rest of the world accepts that there are two alternative viewpoints,
neither of which is any more "technically" correct than the other.  Some
authors follow Smith; some follow Jones; and some explain the controversy,
without necessarily taking sides.

> To clarify, if possible:
> Let's say we have a situation of ongoing taxonomic dispute, e.g. (from
> your above example) between the generic placements of Smith (Aus aus)
> and Jones (Bus aus). Under which circumstances, or in what kind of
> work, would both of these taxonomic opinions be considered valid "at
> the same time" (this is a critical element of the discussion; I
> included it in earlier statements relevant here which, consequently,
> can't be quoted or discussed without that element)?

To the taxonomic world at large, both are equally correct.  To any given
taxonomist at any given time, most would pick one side or the other -- which
I gather now has been your point all along.

I had confused your assertion that "any one taxonomist at any one time must
pick one or the other as the one correct viewpoint", with a more general,
"to the taxonomic community at large, only one of these viewpoints is
correct, and the followers of the other viewpoint are in error".  I believe
I now understand your perspective more....um....correctly.... :-)

> Any individual author using the scientific name of that species as
> valid would have to side with either Smith or Jones.

Right!  And I had mistook your position to be that the whole taxonomic
community must choose the same side in order to be correct, because only one
side is (universally) technically correct.

> In an index or
> database, such as those you and Chris are concerned with, you would
> probably want to present the situation properly by saying that
> conflicting taxonomic opinions exist and have not been resolved.

I wouldn't even go that far.  I would have a record for the publication
instance of Smith (2000), and a record for the publication instance of Jones
(2001), and a taxonomic name record for the "name" Aus aus L. 1758.

My database would then objectively capture these three Assertion records:

[Linnaeus (1758)] cited [Aus aus L. 1758] as "Aus aus" (flagged as original
description).
[Smith (2000)] cited [Aus aus L. 1758] as "Aus aus".
[Jones (2001)] cited [Aus aus L. 1758] as "Bus aus".

Bracketed values represent surrogate human-readible representations to what
would actually be ID number links.

But the point is, my database would have no subjective eleboration about
whether or not these represent conflicting viewpoints, or simply a change in
taxonomic perspective over time.  The two kinds of changes could be
self-evident from the totality of subsequent Assertions.  For example, if we
have a fourh Assertion record:

[Smith (2003)] cited [Aus aus L. 1758] as "Aus aus"

And we further see in the bibliography of Smith (2003) that Jones (2001) is
cited (another feature of my database), then we can objectively infer that
Smith really has a different opinion from Jones.  This would be further
corroborated by the existence of a fifth assertion record:

[Jones (2004)] cited [Aus aus L. 1758] as "Bus aus"

However, if all authors subsequent to Jones 2001 (including, perhaps, some
authored by Smith) all followed Jones in placement within Bus, then the data
would tell us that it's not a controversey.

The broader point is, I don't think it's the job of indexing databases to
make subjective interpretations about whether name changes represent
conflicting taxonomic opinions or not.  The user of the database should be
free to make any interpretation about that he or she wants to.  The indexing
database should concentrate on documenting the objective facts.

Now the topic of conversation has *really* drifted!

> How about that?

As I said in my last post, we seem now to be in 100% agreement -- both on
the issues of this debate, and on our respective inability to contribute any
more time to discussing it.

Aloha,
Rich