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

[Jim Croft]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Richard Petit<r.e.petit at worldnet.att.net> wrote
> I also do not understand Jim Croft's "lack of precision we have lived and
> worked with since Linnaeus/Linne/L."  Why bother to have a type concept if
> types are not consulted when necessary? Was the study of natural history
> more precise before the binominal system was introduced?

The type/protologue is the *only* thing that can be nailed down with
precision.  All other application of a name on a specimen is nearly
always by implied reference to a concept that may have been in the
mind of the identifier at the time.  In most cases our guess is going
to be reasonably good.  But we can never be sure.

I did not mean to imply that prebinomial taxonomy was more precise.
It is just that my life starts in 1753... ;)

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