[Taxacom] taxonomic resistance? (was Re: Phylocode vs Linnean)

[Kim van der Linde]

Doug,

I should have been clearer in that I mean the biology community, and not 
the smaller taxonomists community. I believe you when you say the 
taxonomist community will accept it, but when we go down to the 
drosophilidae taxonomists, it is a mixed bag with some participants 
pretty much openly proclaiming we should not do anything (until some 
arbitrary high threshold is reached) and leave it as it is because we 
cannot change the name by splitting and 100+ homonyms is not a solution 
either if we would lump. The reason for the stalemate is not the 
taxonomy community, but the biology community at large. I have talked 
with enough Drosophila researchers, huh, sorry D. melanogaster 
researchers, to know that the resistance to this (like Aedes aegypti) is 
substantial and it has been suggested to me at more than one occasion by 
non-taxonomists that I should go rouge on this and split the genus 
without changing the name Drosophila melanogaster (and most other 
frequently used Drosophila species) despite the opinion of the ICZN. I 
could, because adherence to The Code is voluntary as far as I know (if 
not, please send me the forms that I need to sign), but I won't because 
in that case, I better would have saved me the work of going to the 
commission.

Anyway, for the time being, phylocode is what rules the genus Drosophila 
sensu lato.

Cheers,

Kim



On 4/15/2011 5:01 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> Kim van der Linde wrote:
>
>> Well, some form of phylocode is already the de facto situation in
>> various groups where revising the taxonomy is held up by resistance of
>> the community for new names. The subgenus Drosophila and its 10+
>> included genera comes to mind.....
>
> That didn't stop taxonomists from elevating the subgenera of Aedes to
> generic level, thus changing Aedes aegypti (one of the most
> widely-known insect names) to Stegomyia aegypti. Given how that
> particular example has played out, I think the "resistance" you refer
> to is not resistance by taxonomists, but resistance by
> *non*-taxonomists - and those are very different communities. If you
> tell the average taxonomist that Drosophila melanogaster is now going
> to be called Sophophora melanogaster, at most you'll get a raised
> eyebrow or a shrug, and then they'll get on with their life, and
> refer to it as Sophophora from that point on. Genus names change all
> the time in butterflies, too, and lepidopterists pick and choose
> their way through the morass, but even THEY (the one group of
> taxonomists that selectively refuses to accept gender agreement)
> accept generic name changes without noticeable resistance. Claiming
> that "the community" will not accept changes in genus names is,
> therefore, a bit of a straw man argument.
>
> Sincerely,

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com