[Taxacom] progress on globalnames.org

[Peter DeVries]

Two of the reasons behind the use of scientific names are:
1) They are more stable than common names
2) The are more precise

If you wanted to plot all the occurrence records of *Puma concolor* in North
America you would have to
combine all the data under all the different scientific names. That is
assuming that those observations
are accurate to species.

Also, I did not mention that despite general agreement that we have one
metapopulation between Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin,
there is not general agreement over whether that should be called *Aedes
triseriatus* or *Ochlerotatus triseriatus.*
*
*
Some of this has to do with groups having different priorities or goals for
scientific names. One group might believe that
recognizing the most accurate taxonomic thinking is the most important,
other groups might believe that achieving goals
1 and 2 are the most important.

I don't think this difference is going to go away. So a system that lets
them agree to disagree, but still allows them to work together on other
common goals might help science.

Respectfully,

- Pete


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> >>> On 15/05/2009 at 10:02 a.m., Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that
> mention the *Puma concolor*, and *Felis concolor.*
> > *
> > *
> > Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
>
> The general public may not know this is a possibility, but regardless of
> the facts of this case, taxonomists usually think this situation is just
> fine.  Whoops a daisy, chop off some Felis into Puma. Couldn't be easier.
> A recombination probably has no effect on the species concept. There will
> be a transition period (years, decades) - during which some will be
> oblivious, or resistant to a genus change. And the change may not 'stick'.
>
> > The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for
> species concepts.
>
> Such as 'Felis concolor' perhaps? But didn't someone already do that right
> at the start of it all? There may be "over 4000 names in English"
> (wikipedia) but we're alright here in taxonomy land, as we've got just one
> basionym.
>
> Nomenclatural history can get very complicated, but I doubt you've chosen
> a good example where confusion and uncertainty might occur at a species
> level.
>
> Actually efforts would go much more quickly, especially for taxonomists
> trying to sort out the rubbish online, if organizations collecting species
> names only served up on the web name strings that are adequately
> researched, at very least not prominently presenting trivial misspellings
> without provenance, and carefully anchored names with authors, dates, and
> citations, and, most important, provided good rapid methods for flags to
> be added for indicating the many errors in their databases as soon as they
> are noticed.
>
>
> Geoff
> --
> Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
------------------------------------------------------------