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

[Stephen Thorpe]

[Roger wrote] A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy.
If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that we
can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
labelled B? Most taxonomists will answer this question with "That
depends".

[reply] One bit at a time:
> A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy
Really? Why? If I stick my flag in the ground and say everything in all directions from here until we hit the sea is hereby named "Australia", and somebody else does the same to a different bit of ground but dubs it "New Holland", then these names are synonyms even though neither of us knew where the coastline was ...
>If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that we can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been labelled B?
Yes! Please provide a counterexample!


________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam [rogerhyam at mac.com]
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 8:55 p.m.
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...

Thank you everyone for your interest in my blog and thanks Jim for
posting it to the list.

I didn't announce the blog to Taxacom myself as I thought it might
provoke a "response".

Here is the link to the post in case you have not followed this thread
from the start.

http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/598 "Nomenclature is Dead! Long Live
Barcode Taxa!"

I'll not respond to everyone in detail - I think most of the issues
have been covered before in numerous places. You could try this
posting (which I think may address Tony's points ) if you really must
read more and haven't read it already:

http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/526 "Taxa, Taxon Names and Globally
Unique Identifiers in Perspective"

A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy.

If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that we
can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
labelled B? Most taxonomists will answer this question with "That
depends".

My contention is that if it depends on some ones opinion then it can't
be *reproduced* in the future when that person is dead. It can only be
approximated to. Which is fine but let us be honest about it.

I will really cherish Richard Petit's "truly pathetic piece of
verbiage" comment. I love it.  It beats the "somewhat obscure" that
was my previous favourite - from a tutor some 20 years ago.

The fun bit is that people don't respond to "pathetic verbiage", they
tend to ignore it or laugh. I suspect, therefore, that I touch a nerve
with my comments - which was my evil intention.

I have updated that strapline on my blog to “truly pathetic verbiage”
is honour of this.

Compassion,

Roger
_______________________________________________

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