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

[Sharkey, Michael J]

Chris et al.,
The main problem that non-taxonomists have with name changes is at the species level. 
    I believe that there is one simple solution to this  (which I have advocated for some time and undoubtedly others have as well). That is to maintain (forever) the original genus-species combination. This would provide a unique identifier for information retrieval. For phylogenetic content we would need to add another rank above genus. There are several ways to initiate this rule. In my opinion, the only road that would not cause confusion would be to return to original combinations. These refer to the type specimen which is an objective, non-theoretical concept. Phylogenetic hypotheses (which will vary and rightfully so) will be the domain of the new, higher rank.  A good name for this higher rank might be the "Hennig".
   I have never heard a good argument against this idea but hopefully, if they exist, I will soon.
Mike

Michael Sharkey
Department of Entomology
University of Kentucky
Lexington KY 40546-0091
(859) 257-9364
msharkey at uky.edu
www.sharkeylab.org
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson [xelaalex at cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:28 PM
To: Kim van der Linde; Stephen Thorpe
Cc: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic resistance? (was Re: Phylocode vs Linnean)

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


_______________________________________________

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