[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Mon May 4 17:43:13 CDT 2015

@Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all) invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens. If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in order for it to look like they are really doing anything worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM

 I carefully circumscribed that
 statement as being relative to vascular plants in the
 Southeastern United States.  Granted:  large parts
 of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate animal
 groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described,
 where types stand large as outposts in the bleak
 unwatered  and minimally  taxonomist-turbed
 concept space.

 It's in some ways a good place to be.  You see
 something different, you name it.  Not so much jostling
 around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy
 old (inadequately typified) names, lumping-splitting
 debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double meaning
 there) opinions.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
 To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
 Cc: TAXACOM
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 > Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be
 unambiguously 
 > circumscribed by something beyond the name (as
 typified) because there 
 > are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in
 play”.

 No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa
 overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by
 no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough
 to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the
 group, so that one pays attention to likely important
 diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a
 good example. I simply compared two images of different
 specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high
 confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM

  We are obviously in furious
  agreement. :)

  It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my
 attention,  but the 'around  which a taxon is
 defined' bit.  It is usually the other  way - a taxon
 is  defined and a type is selected, either from
 existing, or  newly designated  if none exists.

  But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach,
 and  it may be  simply semantic. "a very small
 percentage of taxa are  unambiguously 
 circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't 
 circumscribe taxa based  on types as such. For the
 purposes of taxonomy, the type is  just another 
 specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa
 are  sorted, then  the type becomes important. I
 like to draw very clear  distinctions between  the
 acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the
 type  specimen as a  specimen and the type
 specimen as a type. ;)

  jim

  On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:

  >  I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and 
 was making the same point  > you ae making – so,
 am not sure what you are  objecting to in my “flag
 in  > the sand” analogy.  The flag might be over
 on  one extreme edge of the  > “taxonspace”
 (as implied by Paul).  A type  anchors a name but does
 not  > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest
 possible sense  of the type itself).
  >
  >
  >
  > In very poorly understood groups (with a high 
 taxon:systematist ratio) the  > types stand large as
 outposts in the bleak unwatered  and minimally 
 > taxonomist-turbed desert.  This seems to be what 
 Stephen was describing in  > his universe.  As
 systematics proceeds, the types  are still critical
 to  > anchor the application of names, but the
 emphasis  shifts to the boundaries  > between
 the various flags (types), and which flags are  taken
 over by others  > and become synonyms of what is
 regarded as a “good”
  taxon (not to sound too
  > militaristic).  In the vascular flora of the 
 Southeastern United States,  > 7200 taxa currently
 recognized, a very small percentage  of taxa are 
 > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type 
 alone.  Put another way,  > the great majority of
 taxa can only be unambiguously  circumscribed by 
 > something beyond the name (as typified) because
 there  are sensu stricto or  > sense lato
 interpretations “in play”.  If I  write
 “Andropogon virginicus  > Linnaeus 1753” on a
 specimen (or a record in a
  database) without sec or
  > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the
 narrowest  sense, or variously  > including 1,
 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in  “lumpier”
 taxonomic  > schemes currently or in recent decades
 followed by  other credible taxonomic  >
 experts.
  >
  >
  >
  > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com] 
 > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM  > *To:*
 Weakley, Alan  > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van
 Rijckevorsel  >  > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom]
 Why stability? - Revisited  >  > 
 >  > This is not strictly true. The purpose of
 the type is  to anchor the name,  > as Paul
 describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or  in any
 way define  > the taxon. That is a separate process
 that may end up  including one or more  >
 types, and hence one or more names. At least with 
 plants. People may think  > they are defining a
 taxon by selecting the 'best'
  possible type to
  > represent their concept, and it is probably a
 wise  thing to do, but this is  > not what is
 happening according to the Code. They are  simply
 anchoring the  > name.
  >
  > Jim
  >
  > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
  wrote:
  >
  > The type is a flag in space around which the 
 circumscription of a taxon  > (its concept) is
 defined -- usually in relation to  other, "competing"
 taxa.
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of
  > Paul van Rijckevorsel
  > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
  > To: TAXACOM
  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
 Revisited  >  > I was a little uneasy why
 Stephen Thorpe's attitude  that taxa are defined 
 > by types is so alien to me.
  >
  > But it is very straightforward: from the very first
 the  'botanical' Code  > has laid down that
 nomenclatural types are not  necessarily the most
 typical  > or representative element of a taxon
 (that is, holding  only the type, it is  > not
 possible to predict with any degree of confidence  what
 the taxon  > exactly looks  > like: the type
 is only the type) .
  >
  > For plants there does exist a situation where the
 whole  unit is determined  > by a reference
 specimen, namely in the ICNCP 
 (Cultivated-plant-Code),  > resulting in names of
 the type Hydrangea macrophylla  'La France'.
  >
  > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable
 complexity  (and which does  > benefit from
 regulation), but taxonomy is not  involved.
  >
  > Paul
  > _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List
  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  > _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List
  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
  >
  > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  >
  >

  --
  _________________
  Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
  ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~  http://about.me/jrc 
 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.