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

[Chris Thompson]

Kim and others:

The issue is not taxonomic resistance, but usefulness. Spitting versus 
lumping in classifications. Making CHOICE available to all, not assuming 
that yours is the best and right taxonomic classification.

Sorry, Kim, but the World, whether it be real life or Science, is not black 
and white. For Science, especially, there can be and should be multiple 
hypotheses, and, therefore, resultant interpretations of them for practical 
reality.

Yes, you object that your hypothesis and its nomenclatural translation has 
been rejected by the larger user community. This represents as you did not 
note a conflict between a “splitter” classification and a more useful 
(traditional), pragmatic “lumper” classification.

The issue is not about phylocode versus traditional (ICZN) linnaean 
nomenclature, but whether one accepts a split or lump classification, which 
is a pragmatic issue, independent of nomenclatural codes. BUT yes, the 
phylocode is better as it is RANK independent and there is no consistent, 
scientific method (except for Hennig’s age criterion) for assigning rank, 
etc.

Yes, one can split large genera, like Aedes or Drosophila, into numerous 
genera. Fine, but is that useful or even progress?

Yes, some today some see splitting as progress as they have a vested 
interest, such as higher IMPACT factors: Propose a new split classification, 
and, therefore, there will be lots of NEW combinations, and perhaps new 
taxa. BUT are these new groups useful to general users?

Well, for example, to public health people, etc., the traditional 
classification of a broad genus, such as Aedes, is more useful. [And as an 
aside, this was proven years ago. Theobald proposed a split classification 
of mosquitoes in the early part of the last century (1900-1910s), but that 
was rejected by users who have followed by broader classification proposed 
by Edwards in the 1930s, which is still being used today.] So, I suspect 
that most general biologists, geneticists, etc., are very happy with the 
traditional classification of Drosophila.

And, remember, users will simply abandon scientific nomenclature for common 
names when the classification is overly split as have the “bird watchers,” 
that is, those interested in birds have done.

FINALLY, about Drosophila melanogaster versus Sophophora melanogaster. The 
reason the ICZN rejected your appeal was honesty. To allow users to 
distinguish between classifications, to know whether an author is following 
the traditional classification (Drosophila melanogaster) or the revised 
(new) classification (Sophophora melanogaster). To change the type species 
of Drosophila would have hidden from all users which classification was 
being used. Neat, but not honest.

Sincerely,

Chris

F. Christian Thompson
Department of Entomology
Smithsonian Institution



-----Original Message----- 
From: Kim van der Linde
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 6:06 AM
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic resistance? (was Re: Phylocode vs Linnean)

Stephen,

Yeah, cage match between Drosophila melanogaster and Sophophora
melanogaster!

Kim

On 4/15/2011 8:49 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>  >adherence to The Code [ICZN] is voluntary as far as I know (if not,
> please send me the forms that I need to sign),
> this is true, *but* risky to ignore the Code - for one thing there is a
> substantial bioinformatics community working on cataloguing all taxa.
> They will likely ignore any work that *doesn't* adhere to the Code. So,
> you run the risk of having your work ignored and/or having your taxa
> renamed by someone else who may become the author of the new names
> despite doing less actual work that you have done. So, it all depends on
> how big the "ignore the Code" community gets relative to the Code
> conformist community, and that, at present, is far from clear ...
> Stephen

_______________________________________________

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