[Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?

Tue Jun 19 02:47:52 CDT 2012

yes, I'm doing it now (or trying to!) ...

From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> 
Cc: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 'TAXACOM' <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU> 
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?

...and don't forget the DOIs ;) 

On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:42, Richard Pyle wrote:

Nice….
> 
>Now, let’s get those alpha taxonomy pubs (and the names)  he mentioned in there, to make it legit.  (The Trees within trees, within TREE article doesn’t cut it for ZooBank…)
> 
>Rich
> 
>From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:38 PM
>To: Roderic Page; TAXACOM
>Cc: Richard Pyle
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
>
>just to remove any doubt, Rod, about your biotic orientation, I have just added your name to the zoological offenders register (a.k.a ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/?id=urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6899544A-A593-43B8-8DA0-2EF919917B52) !! :)
>
>
> 
>From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
>To: TAXACOM <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU> 
>Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:25 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
>
>
>
>Me, a botanist!? I'm not sure who should be more insulted, me or botanists (plants, they're those green things that don't do anything interesting, right?)
> 
>Rod
> 
>On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:18, Richard Pyle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>The confusion here stems from the difference between how zoologists
>(Stephen) typically understand a "name" to be, and how botanists (Rod)
>understand a "name" to be.  Rod is talking about what botanists would refer
>to as "homotypic synonyms" (=objective synonyms) -- which is a term (and
>concept) we don't exercise much in zoology.  The point is neither Rod nor
>Stephen is confused; rather, the differences between botanical and
>zoological traditions of terminology have been (and continue to be)
>confusing.
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:08 PM
>To: Roderic Page
>Cc: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>moves genus?
> 
>Dearer Rod,
>Your terminology is a little confusing, and perhaps a little confused?
>Objective synonymy of species names occurs if two species names have the
>same type, mostly if one is a new replacement name for the other. But you
>are talking about different combinations of the same nominal species,
>which
>
>
>is an entirely different thing. Incidentally, D. melanogaster can still
>"actually
>
>
>be" a Drosophila if we draw a monophyletic line wide enough around the
>type species of Drosophila, but it might have to include most
>drosophilids,
>
>
>but it is an option, as is simply allowing for non-monophyletic genera
>(but still
>
>
>changing combinations sometimes for reasons other than strict monophyly).
>I have to say that "generating needless synonyms" really just formalises
>different opinions, and we don't want to stop different opinions, do we?
>In
>
>
>fact, we pretty much have to keep track of all the different opinions on a
>taxon, and the "needless synonyms" are one way of doing that ...
>regards,
>Stephen
> 
> 
>________________________________
>From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>Cc: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>;
>"TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU"
><TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 10:58 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>moves genus?
> 
> 
>Dear Stephen,
> 
>The synonymy I'm most concerned about is objective synonymy of species
>names (i.e., that which happens when we move a species from one genus to
>another). Bionomials have implicit meaning built in, or more correctly, we
>interpret the name as meaningful. If we relax that (e.g., are fine with
>Drosophila melanogaster not actually being a Drosophila) then we'd stop
>generating a lot of needless synonyms.
> 
>Presumably objective generic synonymy only occurs if two generic names
>have the same type species, in which case this would seem rather rare?
> 
>Regards
> 
>Rod
> 
> 
> 
> 
>On 18 Jun 2012, at 23:48, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 
>I guess I'm arguing that overloading the names with meaning (i.e.,
>expecting them to tell us something about relationships) is the root
>cause of much (most?) synonymy, which in turn makes taxonomy difficult
>to use. Is it not time to rethink this practice?<
> 
>Hold on, synonymy at the *species level* is for entirely different
>reasons!
>
>
>Also, some generic synonymy is objective synonymy (i.e., purely
>nomenclatural). These changes cannot be stopped ...
> 
>Stephen
> 
> 
> 
>________________________________
>From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
>To: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>Cc: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 10:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>moves genus?
> 
>Dear Doug,
> 
>On 18 Jun 2012, at 22:55, Doug Yanega wrote:
> 
>Rod wrote:
> 
>Hi Doug,
> 
>I'm puzzled as to why keeping the name unchanged is only possible
>with a computerised system, while changing names willy-nilly is the
>best method without computers?!
> 
>First, your proposal is - despite your rebuttal - the same thing as
>having a uninomial. If "Drosophila melanogaster" is an invariant text
>string used for a taxon in the actual genus Sophophora, then the only
>difference between that and the original proposals for uninomials is
>that there is no hyphen.
> 
>Sure, but just so we're clear that I'm not advocating changing the way a
>binomial is written.
> 
> 
>Second, my point is that if you disassociate the name that is used
>for a taxon from the taxonomic hierarchy to which it belongs (which
>is exactly what you are proposing, especially given that often the
>original genus isn't even in the same family as the actual family -
>e.g., many of Linnaeus' names), then you cannot possibly hope to
>allow non-experts to know how any given taxon fits into the
>classification without a functioning hyperlinked LSID system in place
>- because otherwise EVERY non-expert will assume the "genus name"
>they see in print is part of a classificatory hierarchy, since that's
>how it has *always* worked. That's what I mean by "cultural inertia".
>[Note also that this glosses over a major and horrific side-effect;
>in order for your proposal to work, it would have to be retroactive
>to all existing names, so the vast majority of species in existence
>would suddenly find themselves with "resurrected" pseudo-genus names
>- all the common butterflies would be Papilio again, the bees would
>be Apis, the wasps would be Vespa, and so forth - it would be the
>taxonomic equivalent of a zombie apocalypse! And, no, you couldn't
>just pick an arbitrary cutoff date for when genus names would stop
>being altered, because there is no consensus for the generic
>placement of many existing taxa!]
> 
>If the genus part of a bionomial name is subject to change then how,
>exactly, do I work out where it fits in the classification? If, for
>example, I look
>
>
>at frog names in the literature over the last few decades, they are being
>bounced around all sorts of different genera. Anyone looking at this is
>going
>
>
>to struggle to figure out what names are the same, never mind where they
>fit in any frog classification. There's a big literature on phylogeny,
>development, ecology, disease, etc. that uses multiple names for the same
>thing. Why is this a good thing?
> 
>Why does it have to be retroactive? Why not simply decide to change
>existing practice and say from some date on lets leave names as they are?
>If
>
>
>there's no consensus, lets just make a decision (or leave it to the first
>person
>
>
>who cares enough to tackle the group). In any event, at no point did I say
>let's roll everything back and start again.
> 
> 
> 
>You can't just issue a worldwide memo saying "Oh, FYI, the genus
>names used in printed scientific names are no longer used in
>classification, effective immediately. - The Management". If you want
>to make that radical a change to how names work, then you'd be forced
>to publish everything online, and give people hyperlinked LSIDs so
>they can click on a name and see its classification. That, or you'd
>have to use TWO genus names from now on (plus subgenus where
>applicable), so part of the name would reflect the classification,
>and the other would reflect the original published combination. So,
>e.g., the European paper wasp would become "Polistes (Polistes)
>[Vespa] dominula dominula (Christ, 1791)". All that does is add
>another level of unwieldiness.
> 
>Publishing everything online wouldn't actually be a bad thing, and it's
>pretty
>
>
>clearly where we are heading.
> 
>At no point am I suggesting we have to burden names further with their
>history. Just give me a name and stop mucking around with it.
> 
> 
>Isn't the key separating names from relationships - relationships
>being the task of phylogenetics.
> 
>Again, if names have always reflected relationships, suddenly
>disassociating them will create chaos unless you have a convenient
>workaround. If you can convince people that you have such a
>workaround, maybe you can sell people on the idea - I just don't see
>it happening any time soon. Besides which, bear in mind that a
>non-trivial number of the world's taxonomists do not or did not
>organize their classifications using phylogenetic principles, so the
>*only* evidence we have of their hypotheses of relationships are
>their names.
> 
>I guess I'm arguing that overloading the names with meaning (i.e.,
>expecting them to tell us something about relationships) is the root cause
>of
>
>
>much (most?) synonymy, which in turn makes taxonomy difficult to use. Is
>it
>
>
>not time to rethink this practice?
> 
>Regards
> 
>Rod
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>Peace,
>--
> 
>Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology        Entomology Research
>Museum
>
>
>Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
>phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
>UCR's)
>
>
>            http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>      is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> 
>_______________________________________________
> 
>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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
>(2) a Google search specified as:
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> 
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Roderic Page
>Professor of Taxonomy
>Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building
>University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> 
>Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>Skype: rdmpage
>AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
>Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> 
>_______________________________________________
> 
>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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
>(2) a Google search specified as:
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> 
> 
> 
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Roderic Page
>Professor of Taxonomy
>Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College
>of
>
>
>Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of
>Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> 
>Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>Skype: rdmpage
>AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
>Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>_______________________________________________
> 
>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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
>(2) a Google search specified as:
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
>This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
> 
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Roderic Page
>Professor of Taxonomy
>Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
>Graham Kerr Building
>University of Glasgow
>Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
>Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>Skype: rdmpage
>AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
>Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
Skype: rdmpage
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html