[Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data

[Stephen Thorpe]

Mary,
I almost totally agree! Except "anchors a name" = "defines a species", at least if anything can be said to define a species, it is that!
The important point is this:
Two taxonomists disagree about the circumscription of a genus - one is more of a lumper, the other a splitter. The disagreement is purely subjective opinion, not "science"
cf. Two taxonomists disagree about the circumscription of a (sexually reproducing) species. I say (at least) one of them is wrong as a matter of fact (the facts being ones about reproductive isolating mechanisms)
Example: Human and chimp can belong to the same genus, but cannot belong to the same species ...
Stephen
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Barkworth [Mary at biology.usu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 9:47 a.m.
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data

Personally, I prefer to talk about circumscribing a taxon rather than
defining a taxon - it conveys, to me, a recognition that the concept may
change - and the circumscription may need to be changed. Definitions are
less flexible. Having said which, a type does not define a taxon. It
anchors a name.
Mary

_______________________________________________

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