Stability of names...

[Chris J. Durden]

"If it's not broke don't fix it"!
  The Linnaean convention of binomial nomenclature combined with the
principle of priority survived the contributions of Darwinism and
Neo-Darwinism. It should be able to survive the contributions of cladism
and molecular inspection.
  If we keep exceptions to the rules of priority and publication to a
minimum, and if we keep the requirement of voucher specimens the Linnaean
system should continue working efficiently indefinitely.
  I personally would like to see rollback of ICZN activity to strict
enforcement of the minimum rules without exceptions. I think in these days
of translator programs we should go back to the requirement of publication
of diagnoses in Latin.
......Chris Durden





At 08:35  20/09/00 +0300, you wrote:
>Hello everybody,
>   Thought I would start up a discussion on a controversial subject: how
>should species be named (scientifically speaking).
>
>
>Michael Gochfeld wrote:
>> 
 
>
>This reminds me of a paper in last year's Systematic Biology by Cantino
>et al (Syst Biol 48:790-807), in which the authors are out to trash the
>Linnean hierarchical system because it is not stable. I remember that my
>first reading of the paper made me see red, and now my second reading
>was no less repulsive.
>   The gist of their paper is that the Linnean hierarchical system
>forces one to have a genus name for each species (not to mention the
>higher levels such as family, order, class, etc). Since genera are not
>comparable across different species groups, they should be abandoned
>completely. For instance if we humans were insects we would surely
>belong to the same genus as chimps and gorillas. 
- - - - -
Yes it has been suggested before and that is where Carl Linne put them
originally. Current educated opinion splits them, but molecular biology may
oblige us to revive the opinion of Linne. So what! The system can work.
- - - - -(CD)
Further, species in
>some genera are millions of years old, whereas species in other genera
>are only hundreds of thousands of years old.
- - - - -
If as I do, you think that a species is optimized for occupation of a
(Hutchinsonian) niche, then a species is that which occupies a niche. The
age of a species then depends on how long a niche persists. The devision
between species are thus the punctuations of the equilibrium, and the
relative age of species has no bearing on systematics.
- - - - -(CD)
>   The solution of Cantino et al? They present no less than 13
>alternative ways to name species, grouped into 3 groups. In group one,
>the current name of any species should be carved into stone and to
>indicate this (taxonomy hits the internet age) the species name could be
>represented as Parus.atricapilla (to take the black-capped chickadee as
>an example). Or even better, as parusatricapilla (I did not forget the
>space). This name would not change even if new information was gotten on
>the relationships of species in the group.
- - - - - -
I would expect this only from a church edict! Adherence to priority is the
only edict we need.
- - - - - -(CD)
>   The group 2 of Cantino et al does not differ from today's practice of
>making hierarchical ranks monophyletic. The Parus in the name
>Parus.atricapilla would be a clade address, if atricapilla were to go to
>another clade in some phylogenetic analysis, the name Parus would have
>to change. Sound familiar?
- - - - - -
So let's keep what we have.
- - - - - -(CD)
>   The third group of possible ways to name species is to give them a
>unique number! How's this: atricapillus2346793? The best estimates today
>of the number of species on Earth are in the range of 10 million. I
>wonder who gets number 1....
- - - - - -
This is unfair to us dyslexics who cannot remember numbers, let alone
passwords. Just think how difficult it would be to carry on an intelligent
conversation?
- - - - - -(CD)
>   So what do you think? Is it better to carve names in stone, but lose
>all the information inherent in them? Or do you think that the
>hierarchical level should give you some idea about the relationships of
>species in question? Personally, I find the prospect of somebody naming
>a new butterfly species John.com (or more properly Johnus.comus, as
>Cantino et al say names should be Latinized) nauseating.
>
>Cheers,
>Niklas
>
>-- 
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>