[Taxacom] Catalogue of Life (CoL) management classification draft document

[Peter Stevens]

Not really disagreeing with the below, but: If a phylogeny were  
stable/well supported, and if monophyly were a guiding principle,  
then there is surely little reason why we could not agree on a  
classification, if we could negotiate the lumping/splitting issue,  
and if (related) we realise that classifications are for convenience  
and do not/should not constrain how one sees the world.  Thus I am  
happy to talk about angiosperms, Orchidaceae, Poaceae to students at  
all levels, even though the  interesting questions, such as why are  
there so many flowering plants, orchids, grasses may not be at those  
levels at all (e.g. in grasses, rather the PACCMAD/BEP clades, in  
flowering plants, I haven't the faintest idea, but maybe at a  
multitude of levels in the clade, in orchids, epiphytic  
Epidendroideae, perhaps).

And if we cannot agree about names, given the above caveats, what then?

P.

On Jul 18, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

> Dear Tony and other Taxacomers,
>
> Biological classification is a mixture of scientific fact (i.e.,
> monophyly, or not) and subjective opinion (i.e., how big or small
> should a monophyletic group be without the need to split it). Both
> these factors taken together doesn't make life very easy, and it is
> all in perpetual flux, which also doesn't make it very easy. However,
> I don't think that the issue can be "managed" in quite the way that is
> envisaged by some. I have thought a great deal about this, for my
> Wikispecies work. My primary governing principle is that, subject to
> monophyly, classification is primarily a filing system to make
> information management easier. So, it doesn't really matter which
> classification is followed, PROVIDING that it is explicitly stated
> which one. The problem with adopting a particular classification for a
> large group (like the "Protista") is that advances in taxonomy happen
> on much smaller subgroups, so if you blindly follow one particular
> broad classification, then you cannot accommodate the advances very
> easily. Hence, I think you have to simply treat matters on a case by
> case basis, and just choose and specify a sensible classification for
> that particular case (and change it, if necessary, if something more
> convincing is published). To try to come up with a single "officially
> endorsed" classification would simply be to ignore the subjectivity
> and fallibility of taxonomy...
>
> Stephen Thorpe
> Honorary Research Associate
> School of Biological Sciences
> Tamaki Campus
> University of Auckland
> Private Bag 92019
> Auckland
>
> Quoting Tony.Rees at csiro.au:
>
>> Dear Taxacomers,
>>
>> For those who may not have yet come across it, I thought it might be
>> worth mentioning that a draft discussion document entitled "Towards
>> a management hierarchy (classification) for the Catalogue of Life"
>> by Dennis Gordon is now available on the CoL website (and also the
>> CD-ROM distribution version for 2009) at the following URL:
>>
>> http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2009/ 
>> info_hierarchy.php
>>
>> There is no stated procedure for commenting on this draft or to whom
>> such comments should be addressed, but it makes good reading for
>> those interested in such matters, and might stimulate some relevant
>> discussion as well, updated since the last time this issue was
>> raised on the list around one year ago. I'd be particularly
>> interested in the question of whether a consensus now exists to
>> follow e.g. Cavalier-Smith in treating the protists, or whether
>> there are other views on this that are also worthy of consideration
>> (since I would appreciate some guidance in this area myself).
>>
>> Regards - Tony Rees
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Adolf & Oluna
>> Ceska [aceska at telus.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, 18 July 2009 1:28 AM
>> To: 'TAXACOM'
>> Subject: [Taxacom] Drawing of Myriophyllum fruits
>>
>> I am looking for drawings of fruits ("mericarps") of the following
>> water-milfoil (Myriophyllum) species:
>>
>>
>>
>> Myriophyllum heterophyllum
>>
>> Myriophyllum pinnatum
>>
>> Myriophyllum quitense
>>
>> Myriophyllum ussuriense
>>
>>
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate if some of those botanists who like to  
>> have their
>> feet wet could help me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adolf Ceska, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
>> of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
>> of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/ 
> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here