[Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing hypotheses & not real things"

[But Paul]

Hi, Paul

Your point makes sense.

Paul But





"Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl> 於 2013年9月2日 16:30 寫道：

> From: "Fred Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:53 PM
> 
>> * that's what we proposed in 1972 - my point was that it would look like 
>> it carried information. The point of the transition from polynomial to 
>> binomial names was mnemonic - and a transition to uninominal practice 
>> would still preserve the appearance of binominalism - nobody would be 
>> able to tell that Rana-pipiens and Rana-aurora were now in different 
>> genera - though on the other hand one could have a convention of putting 
>> a changed generic name in brackets after the uninominal name so that 
>> they'd be written as Rana-pipiens [Lithobates] and Rana-aurora - so 
>> maybe my objection isn't as cogent as I thought it was.
> 
> ***
> Linnaeus put many conifers in the genus Pinus, resulting in the 
> name Pinus abies. Given that there is universal agreement that 
> this tree does not belong among the pines, but among the 
> spruces (Picea), and that this agreement has existed for a very 
> long time, the combination Picea abies is quite economical and 
> quite informative. The idea of using "Pinus-abies [Picea]" does 
> not appeal at all.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.