Of names and committees and people and ?

Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
Fri Mar 31 15:29:26 EST 2000


Always good to see spirited debate and candid sharing of views and values.
Here is a synopsis of my present view on this topic of names and committees
(next year some of my thinking will likely have changed):
1.	NABA and every other group of people has every right to decide for
themselves what names they want to use for communication purposes and every
right to decide for themselves what taxonomic entities they wish to
recognise.  This also applies to individuals.  People who have discomfort
with this could go live in a totalitarian state or apply for a job as a
supreme, know it all, deity.  People who find this confusing should get used
to being confused.
2.	No past, present or future names committee has been, is or will be
in a position to impose their view of "correctness" on other people.  All
they can do is sell their ideas and see who buys them.
3.	Stability is important to some people but not important to other
people.  Change will continue, like it or not.
4.	Taxonomists who are paid to do such work do not have a monopoly on
knowledge or intelligence or the capacity for logical and creative thinking.
They are not always correct although they sometimes agree with each other to
greater or lesser degrees.  Beware the dangers of "group think" 
5.	Nomenclature and taxonomy is not rocket science; it strikes me as
more dynamic opinion than science.  And one could argue that it is not even
science if one defines science as that which involves use of the
experimental method.  From my perspective this whole topic is about
decision-making and consensus-building --- or the lack thereof :-)
6.	There are and will continue to be differing opinions on what
constitutes a genus vs a subgenus; a species vs a subspecies; a
phenotypically distinct population vs a subspecies.  The lumping and
splitting debate will continue at all levels of the category hierarchy
because there will continue to be different definitions of the categories
and different views on the criteria used to assign a name to a category.  I
have seen both lumping and splitting that I disagree with and simply having
another list of names (whether compiled by a group of splitters or lumpers)
will not be very helpful to me.  What is helpful is to have a comprehensive
analysis of available information (published and unpublished), the resulting
conclusion and the rationale/logic for the conclusion. I can then decide if
I want to believe the conclusion/opinion/interpretation that has been put
forward.
7.	Different people will continue to have different opinions about what
constitutes clear evidence and will continue to interpret evidence
differently -- even when they agree that the evidence is 'clear'.  People
will (hopefully) continue to make decisions on the best available
information and not everyone will agree with those decisions.
8.	Everyone is welcome to sell their ideas and preferences to other
people.  People who need names to put into a computer database are welcome
to use whatever name they want and are welcome to select their preferred
name on whatever basis they want.  My preference is to use the best
available information - be it published or unpublished - and with full
recognition that new information will inevitably surface and that I will
need to make some name changes in my database.
9.	There is no such thing as a good or a bad taxon or name.  There are
only different opinions based on different values, concepts, assumptions,
data, conventions etc.  Concepts like 'good', 'bad' and 'short shrift' have
no place in rational thinking as applied to taxonomy and nomenclature and
are dysfunctional in helping to build consensus.
10.	Having said all that; I agree that NABA should take the lead in
promoting common names and Lep. Soc. should take the lead in promoting
technical names.  An open, inclusive and measured process on both fronts
will help build acceptability of the products.  Some simple salesmanship
will go further than elitist pronouncements by "experts".  The resulting
lists will be useful to many people and will change over time.  They never
will be 100% "correct".  Best wishes for success to those who chose to
participate in the debates and decision making process.  Please do not be
upset by the fact that not everyone will accept all your suggestions for the
"best" name.
PS. Flame away if it will make you feel better but have a great weekend
anyway :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
Phone 250-365-8610
Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca


More information about the Leps-l mailing list