[Taxacom] manuscript name question
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 11 00:19:44 CDT 2015
I'm not sure how Mike thinks that something "solid" can be built from crumbly bricks?
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 1:15 PM
This thought is
philosophical, and cannot be absolutely correct, but I
think this conversation has moved into Talmudic
debate. These tiny
debating/niggling
points ignore why we have the Code. The Code is there
so that we know what name to put on what
species so that we have a solid
means of
communication about that entity, and that is really the only
important test. Does anyone have a doubt
that if you catch that fly,
you will have
trouble putting the correct name on it? The answer seems
clearly to me to be I would be able to,
even as a non-dipterist. Only
if someone
has trouble in that activity does delving into the bowels of
the Code become necessary. So, it seems all
this stuff is really angels
dancing on
pins.
Mike
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list