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

[Nico Franz]

Agreed, Rich. It's a matter not just of diagnosing the problem, but also
the solution. Best, Nico

" The issues we’re tackling today with Linnaean names are not really rooted
in the naming process per
se. I think that proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature correctly
sensed that there was a problem, but got the diagnosis mostly wrong.
The real issues arise through a combination of (1) how the naming of
taxa is legally regulated (through the Codes, etc.), (2) how these rules
are implemented and supplemented with additional information,
and (3) how these two processes interact over time. Many users who
are unsatisfied with ‘the system’ primarily feel that there is a lot of
baggage in taxonomy. It’s difficult to impossible to sort through that
baggage, leading to linguistic imprecision or even paralysis in certain
taxonomic groups. These users have a point, though the problem is
more likely rooted in a history of inadequate systematic inferences and
poor linguistic implementation than nomenclatural rules. [...]

So while we shouldn’t abandon the ground rules and can’t seem to
escape the costly strategy of gradual increments, I think there’s plenty
of room for strengthening the semantic ties among multiple succeeding
classifications. If systematists can’t guarantee stability in meaning then
we should at least offer more transparency. As experts we can make
explicit our underlying assumptions, new insights, and differences
with former systems on a much more regular basis."

http://franz.lab.asu.edu/publications/LetterLinnaeus.pdf


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>wrote:

> There is another way to frame this:
>
> 1) Names assigned to a single type specimen, and the conceptual scope of
> the
> taxon implied by usage of the name left to subjective debate;
>
> 2) Names assigned to an objectively defined taxon (clade), but where parent
> and child can reverse roles.
>
> #1 is Linnean Nomenclature(ICZN, ICNafp, bacteriological Code); # 2 is
> essentially Phylocode.
>
> After two and a half centuries of mostly successful implementation, why
> would we try to re-define how Linnean names work?  Why not just adopt a
> system designed to do what you want it to do?  Phylocode have too much
> baggage?  OK, then define something new.
>
> The real elephant in the room is the one that Paul Kirk articulated: i.e.,
> that the problems related to species epithets changing combinations with
> different genera are downright trivial (and actually almost tractable --
> watch this space) compared with the wholly intractable problem of divining
> implied taxon concepts from scientific names (with or without basionym
> authorships, with or without year, with or without combination
> authorships).
>
> If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
> biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
> combination issue.  Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to their
> first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down the usage
> of
> the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon concept.
>
> While such a proposal would be far less provocative (and, hence, much less
> fun); it would certainly be far more *USEFUL* -- and also far more easy to
> implement (i.e., much less disruptive to historical practice).
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:38 PM
> > To: TAXACOM
> > Cc: Nico Franz
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> > moves genus?
> >
> > Nico has put the issue quite elegantly:
> >
> > "The inference gains that come with these names/causal properties
> > associations (seem to have, historically) outweigh(ed) the costs of
> tracking
> > changes."
> >
> > It seems to me we have two alternative ways of naming things. Once we've
> > coined a name, either:
> >
> > 1. names don't change when notions of relationship change, hence we can't
> > (necessarily) infer relationships from name, or
> >
> > 2. names change when notions of relationship change, hence we can infer
> > relationships from names
> >
> > Option 1 means names are stable (great for information retrieval) but
> don't
> > tell you much about relationships (indeed, may be positively misleading
> if
> > read literally).
> >
> > Option 2 means names are (usually) informative about relationships at
> some
> > level, but are liable to change at any time.
> >
> > Option 1 means we can't use names to convey relationship, so we need
> > some other way to do this (e.g., phylogenetic trees)
> >
> > Option 2 means we can't retrieve all we know about a taxon by searching
> on
> > a single name, so we need a way to track all name changes over time
> (e.g.,
> a
> > global database of synonyms).
> >
> > Taxonomic practise follows option 2, but without a database of synonyms.
> > Arguably in the past option 1 would have been difficult to implement
> given
> > the varied notion of what "related" might mean. Given that the last few
> > decades have seen "related" become fairly explicitly defined in terms of
> > evolutionary history, might option 1 not be worth reconsidering?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rod
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
>