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

[Dan Lahr]

Why keep it when It is illogical?
Em 04/09/2013 01:41, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> escreveu:

> Well, such "reconciliation tools" require that we first sort out and
> database all existing data in a meaningful and structured manner, and if we
> can do that, then why change the system???
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: David Patterson <david.j.patterson at asu.edu>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013 11:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing
> hypotheses & not real things"
>
>
>
> I do not think that throwing away the past should be seen as a problem.
>  By the time a change is made (and indeed we need to implement it now to
> accommodate the results of discovery using molecular devices), we will have
> many reconciliation / resolution tools like the GN ones, iPlant, BioNames,
> and the GBIF validator (
> http://gbif.blogspot.de/2013/07/validating-scientific-names-with.htm).
>  They will provide the interconnections between the future (UUIDs following
> the ZooBank style?) and the past 250 and beyond.
>
> David Patterson
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> The problem won't go away by creation of a new system of nomenclature
> (which I advise against), not unless we want to throw out 250 yrs worth of
> accumulated biological knowledge about named taxa! A system change would
> only make things easier from its inception, but we would still have to make
> sense of everything which came before ...
> >
> >
> >From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
> >To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >Sent: Tuesday, 3 September 2013 8:02 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Binomial Nomenclature - was: "cataloguing
> hypotheses & not real things"
> >
> >
> >On 2013-09-02 11:38 AM, Dan Lahr wrote:
> >> I do realize that this analogy stretches the current situation in
> taxonomy,
> >> because along with Mendeleev's introduction of the periodic table was
> >> associated with a major paradigm shift (to which he immensely
> contributed)
> >> of using atomic weights to classify elements.
> >>
> >> Well, we have had the paradigm shift some decades ago (Hennig), but have
> >> not had the associated change in nomenclature.  The dual nature of
> genera
> >> will eventually have to come to an end, as it is a relict from a time
> when
> >> species names reflected the classification thoroughly.  This is not the
> >> case anymore.
> >
> >The paradigm shift was Darwin, and the idea that higher-level
> >classification reflects something in nature rather than an artificial
> >"system of convenience". Hennig simply affirmed that the "something" was
> >monophyletic groups.
> >
> >Fred Schueler reminds us that “It’s ironic that the anarchy of ‘descent
> >with modification by natural selection’ should give rise to the only
> >really important or useful natural hierarchical arrangement we know of.”
> >Linnaeus was attempting to distinguish the individual species created by
> >God, and yet his system has worked for 250 years.
> >
> >It's important only to a historian of science which of the four elements
> >were involved in the metal mercury. But biologists even centuries ago
> >recognized units of the natural world that we still find useful. It's
> >true that I can't pick up a work from 1870 and be secure in recognizing
> >the names of species, but there are nomenclators to help me with that. I
> >can definitely be confident in recognizing names in a work from 1970.
> >
> >If we make a major change in nomenclature, we will need nomenclators for
> >everything (most people on this list agree that is a noble goal, even if
> >a few think it is impractical), and we'll need a list of names in
> >current use (the bacteriologists have been there for a while, and the
> >other codes are coming around). These are *prerequisites* for a
> >fundamental change in nomenclature, lest it throw us into the dark ages
> >of redescribing everything. The bacteriologists were successful in
> >making such a change (although many would argue it doesn't go far
> >enough), but there's a lot of work left to be done for everyone else.
> >
> >--
> >Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> >Biological Sciences                  +1 909 869 4140
> >Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> David J Patterson
>
> Research Professor, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University
> Professor (MBL) Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
> Emeritus Professor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney,
> Australia
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>