[Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus

[Richard Pyle]

Paul, I agree with your first paragraph; but your second paragraph reveals a
deep misunderstanding of LSIDs (and, presumably, other kinds of
computer-friendly identifiers).  I had hoped that the many detailed posts on
this point that have come through this list over the years would have left
this sort of confusion in the past; but evidently not.  LSIDs (and other
identifiers like them), are not, never have been, and never will be intended
for use by human eyeballs or human brains.  That human eyeballs (other than
those eyeballs belonging to a few database managers) ever see them at all is
an unfortunate consequence of the awkward point in history we find ourselves
in, transitioning from ink-on-paper products to electronic signals as our
primary mechanism for human-human communication.  The fact that we can still
see DOIs, LSIDs and other such identifiers in our publications and web pages
is evidence that we are still in this awkward period.

Once we get past the awkward transitional phase, we humans should never
again have to look at or think about these opaque identifiers designed for
computer systems.  Then, perhaps, people won't ever point to them as an
"alternative" to human-intelligible identifiers such scientific names.  If
you want to construct a point about abandoning the Linnaean system of
scientific nomenclature, then pointing to something like LSIDs is completely
non-sequitur.  You should instead point to something like Phylocode names,
or vernacular names, which are much more relevant and appropriate
alternatives.

Aloha,
Rich 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 10:01 PM
> To: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different
> genus
> 
> Nomenclature and taxonomy are separate, and scientific names are the
> result of applying nomenclature to a taxonomically defined situation.
> 
> But anybody who does not want to use scientific names can create his own
> reality and use his own (alphanumerical) identifiers, or use something
like
> LSID's. And who knows, this approach may win out eventually, when
> everybody's brain has been augmented / replaced by computers.
> 
> Paul
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roderic Page" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different
> genus
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that this discussion makes a mockery of notion that
> > nomenclature is separate from taxonomy. Once you have bionomial
> names,
> > and insist on those names being "meaningful" (i.e., the genus name
> > tells you something about relationships) then you have a recipe for
> instability.
> >
> > The ICZN decision regarding Drosophila melanogaster was the right one
> > in my opinion, but for the wrong reasons. Why does it matter if
> > Drosophila melanogaster sits in a phylogeny next to some Sophophora
> > species? What matters is its relationships, not what we call it.
> >
> > Names are a poor way to convey relationships, why burden them with
> > this role? If you have no other way of conveying relationships then
> > perhaps the trade off between stability and meaning seems worthwhile.
> > But we do have powerful ways of visualising relationships, so it seems
> > perverse to continue to change names (thus annoying people who use
> > them) in the hope that names remain "meaningful". We don't expect the
> > name of an organism to be meaningful ("maximus" might not be the
> biggest species, "africanus"
> > might come from Australia), can we not let this last scrap of meaning
> > go and save us (and the wider community) some grief?
> >
> > 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
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> > Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> > Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> > Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page
> > Citations:
> > http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> > ORCID id: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive 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
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> > Versie: 2013.0.2904 / Virusdatabase: 2641/6182 - datum van uitgifte:
> > 03/16/13
> > Interne Virusdatabase is verouderd.
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.