Taxonomy & Contradictions

[B.J.Tindall]

Indeed this problem affects most Codes of Nomenclature. Even in a system
such as bacteriology, where all new names and combinations are
registered/indexed (with emphasis on the fact that we register/index ONLY
nomenclature and not the taxonomy!!) the expectation is that we have "one
species = one name". Disputes over whether "closely related" species should
be placed in one, two or even more genera are not uncommon.

Given our system of registration/indexing, which updates names every two
months (perhaps in the near future, once a month), then today's name may be
a synonym in half a year's time. At the same time taxonomic opinion current
10 years ago may be reversed in favour of earlier taxonomic opinions.

If databases are set up to deal with differences in opinion then it isn't
really that important whether one lists Stegomyia aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762)
or Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762), but that one is talking about the same
species. Knowing which name(s) is/are the one(s) which one is likely to
find and that they refer to the same species is the information which needs
to be conveyed. At some point a scientist must use only one, but different
scientists may also have different opinions.

This, as Richard has just confirmed is the type of thing which needs to go
into databases.

Brian


At 07:40 4.5.2005 -0400, christian thompson wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>
>However, could you really claim that BOTH conflicting taxonomic
>opinions are valid? I don't think so, because that would create a
>logical contradiction (one species cannot belong to two genera at the
>same time). Instead, as an indexer or databaser, one would have to
>stay neutral (not make a statement on validity in this case), or side
>with Smith or Jones.
>
>Yes & No:
>
>The answer depends on the purpose of the database.
>
>If one wants to be truly objective and track the published literature,
>etc., then one can design a database which tracks MULTIPLE
>classifications and makes no distinctions as to which classification is
>considered correct / best / valid / or whatever.
>
>So, for a real example: Today there are two published classifications
>for mosquitoes. The most recent is by Harbach et alia (2004) and the
>most widely used and respected is by Edwards (1932). So, for those who
>accept the most recent as the proper classification, the vector of
>yellow fever is Stegomyia aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762), but most workers
>continue to use Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762). The original
>combination, Culex aegypti Linnaeus, has not been used since the 1830s,
>when Meigen developed the first modern classification of mosquitoes. The
>database that Richard has designed can, I suspect, track all these
>classifications.
>
>And this represents a common conflict. Harbach et alia have not provide
>much more insight into the phylogenetic relationships beyond what
>Edwards provided, but instead have decided to elevate the subgenera of
>Edwards to generic status. So, we merely have the splitters versus the
>lumpers. And most taxonomists can understand the situation.
>
>UNFORTUNATELY, most users, especially governments, want a definite
>answer. They want the scientists to tell them to use either one
>combination or another. So, the BDWD has asked its cooperating
>specialist, Richard Wilkerson to make a decision. In turn, Rick has set
>up a committee, a website, etc., and is polling the specialist
>community. the results are not yet in, but in the end, the BDWD, ITIS,
>Species2000, Catalogue of Life, etc., will present to users a single
>combination / name. But mosquito taxonomists will still argue over the
>issue because there is no accepted procedure / protocol / method for
>assigning rank to taxa. That is, both classifications can and do contain
>the same phylogenetic information, only the rankings are different.
>
>Oh, well ...
>
>
>
>
>F. Christian Thompson
>Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA
>c/o Smithsonian Institution
>MRC-0169 NHB
>PO Box 37012
>Washington, DC 20013-7012
>(202) 382-1800 voice
>(202) 786-9422 FAX
>cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov e-mail
>www.diptera.org  web site
>
********************************************************************
* Dr.B.J.Tindall      E-MAIL bti at dsmz.de                           *
* Vice Chairman of the ICSP Judicial Commission                    *
* DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH *
* Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany                *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 0 (general)                                    *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 224 (direct)                                   *
* Fax:  ++ 531 2616 418                                            *
*                                                                  *
* Homepage: http://www.dsmz.de/index.html                          *
* E-MAIL: contact at dsmz.de (general enquiries)                      *
*         sales at dsmz.de (sales)                                    *
********************************************************************