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

Sat Apr 16 13:10:06 CDT 2011

Chris,

I am sure you have thought the idea, of lumping everything together, 
through very well and I will assume that you are fine with all the 
consequences that it has. So, just for the sake of others, let me 
summarize those:

1. Zaprionus (58 species), Hirtodrosophila (159), Scaptomyza (264), 
Liodrosophila (64), Mycodrosophila (127), Samoaia (7), Dichaetophora 
(61), Lordiphosa (60), Dettopsomyia (13) as well as the subgenus 
Xenophorticella of the genus Phorticella (4) are positioned within the 
genus Drosophila. Furthermore, Paramycodrosophila (16 species) and 
Zygothrica (124) most likely as well. Total close to 1,000 species to be 
transferred to the genus Drosophila (~2250 species already, 50 million 
years to the split with the common ancestor).

2. Except Dettopsomyia, all of these are positioned square within one of 
the two subgenera; Dettopsomyia is most likely in between the two main 
subgenera. Many of the included genera have subgenera, species-groups 
and species subgroups defined. Lumping these genera into the genus 
Drosophila either requires to eliminate two levels of classification 
within the transferred genera (genus and subgenus) or requires to split 
the subgenera within Drosophila to accommodate the existing subgenera as 
new subgenera in the expanded genus Drosophila. (What would you choose?)

3. It would create more than 100 secondary homonyms, some of which will 
change frequently used species names because of precedence. For example, 
Mycodrosophila elegans over Drosophila elegans (which actually is a 
conserved name, opinion 2143) and Mycodrosophila erecta over Drosophila 
erecta, both frequent used for genetic research.

Cheers,

Kim

On 4/16/2011 1:28 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> 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

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com