[Taxacom] Read... and believe...

[Jim Croft]

I actually do not have a problem with Roger's three axioms, which was
one of the reason's I posted them.  They  describe the lack of
precision we have lived and worked with since Linnaeus/Linne/L.  As
Doug points out, sad but true...

Roger's solution, on the other hand is, shall we say... 'interesting'...

jim

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Richard Petit<r.e.petit at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Thanks for posting this truly pathetic piece of verbiage.  It reinforces my
> oft stated observation that many modern workers prefer to accept a name as
> representing what someone has used it for whether or not it is correct.
> This is a direct result of not going back to the original description which
> points one to the type specimen. Looking up and utilizing original
> introductions of names is evidently too much work for some and not doing so
> results in all sorts of taxonomic problems.
>
> I hope someone will post an explanation of: "If a specimen is named but the
> taxonomic classification used in the naming is not specified then it can’t
> be know which taxon (of the multiple possible taxon concepts for that name)
> it has been identified to."
>
> In a recent post I expressed my fear that the IDs (based on photographs) by
> barcoders will become the de facto types of the taxa involved. That should
> suit (Mr.)(Dr.)(Rev.) Hyam.
>
>  dick p.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> To: "TaxaCom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:23 PM
> Subject: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> you can weep if you like:
>
> a blog post by Roger Hyam: http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/598
>
> For example:
>
> " 1. Names are not reliable pointers to taxa. If a specimen is named
> but the taxonomic classification used in the naming is not specified
> then it can’t be know which taxon (of the multiple possible taxon
> concepts for that name) it has been identified to. See Taxa, Taxon
> Names and Globally Unique Identifiers in Perspective.
> 2. Descriptions require human interpretation. As described above, the
> use of exemplar specimens combined with descriptions means that
> identifications will vary between experts.
> 3. Relationships between descriptions are vague. The same name may be
> used for several separately defined taxa. The descriptions of these
> taxa may use the same or different morphological characteristics. Some
> descriptions will omit characteristics used in other descriptions that
> are ostensibly about of the same taxon. It is therefore not possible
> to say whether the two description overlap, are equivalents or do not
> intersect at all."
>
> etc...
>
> jim
>
> --
> _________________
> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
> ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
> ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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



-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe