Stability of names...

[Doug Yanega]

Mike Gochfeld wrote:

>If the scientific name MUST reflect the current state of understanding
>of relationships, then it is an awkward structure indeed. Having grown
>up in the biological species culture and phylogenetic systematics, it
>only bothers me a little.
[snip]
>One possibility is that names could be left alone and phenetic diagrams
>used to depict relationships.
[snip]
>So like most things that generate a lot of opinions, there probably
>isn't a good answer.

One of the big proponents of a "rankless" scheme visited UCR a short while
ago, and his sales pitch was essentially to use phylogenies to develop
classifications, and that names could be applied at whatever junction on
the tree one liked, but not redefined once coined. Thus "greater stability"
is achieved, in theory.
        For example, under the present system, if we agree with the most
robust-looking analyses, the Rhopalocera make the Geometroidea a
paraphyletic group (in other words, butterflies are one of the descendant
clades within the superfamily Geometroidea, and their *exclusion* is
phylogenetically inappropriate), and we should simply include them, and
redefine Geometroidea accordingly. People will just have to accommodate the
new classification, and get in the habit of thinking that way. This exact
sort of thing has happened repeatedly in other groups of insects and other
animals, and people have adapted. Ultimately, the name persists
("Geometroidea" in this case), but its meaning changes.
        Under a rankless system, we permanently DEFINE "Geometroidea" as
"Apoprogonidae + Axiidae + Callidulidae + Cyclidiidae + Drepanidae +
Epicopeiidae + Epiplemidae + Geometridae + Pterothysanidae + Sematuridae +
Thyatiridae + Uraniidae" (our present classification), and if someone comes
along and subsequently insists that we shoehorn the Rhopalocera in there
(where they belong, really), then they have to create a *new* name for the
new group thus created. Ultimately, in this case, the meaning of the name
"Geometroidea" is not changed, but the name becomes effectively superfluous
and goes out of circulation (since the group it defines proves not to be a
natural group, and so no one is likely to ever desire to use it again),
while a new name is created to take its place, and everyone has to learn
the new name. This is what rankless advocates consider to be "greater
stability".
        To me, it looks exactly like the proverbial "six of one, half a
dozen of the other". In what way is the creation of new names EVERY TIME a
different phylogeny is published more stable than redefining the old names
every time? Either way, something changes and we are all forced to re-learn
the classification. Well, DUH! Frankly, I find it easier to keep track of
new definitions than to keep track of ever-growing lists of new versus
defunct names. Think of it this way: if rankless proponents have their way,
then it is virtually inevitable that all the old rank names will get wiped
away one by one and replaced, so we won't have things like "Papilionidae",
"Nymphalidae", "Lycaenidae", etc. to talk about any more. I don't see that
sort of incessant, inevitable turnover of names as an improvement.

I also see Chris Durden just wrote:

>I think in these days
>of translator programs we should go back to the requirement of publication
>of diagnoses in Latin.

Have you seen the recent paper (originally an internet "publication") by
Burnside, Smith & Kambhampati where they describe three new Cryptocercus
roaches, the diagnosis for each species being its DNA sequence? I kid you
not (J. Kansas Ent. Soc. 72: 361-378)!! I'd like to see you translate THAT
into Latin. We are sitting at the brink, folks, of the death of taxonomy.
The gene jockeys might win. Won't it be fun when we all won't be able to
identify an insect to species without paying someone to do its sequence for
us? I can see it now: "Well, son, that COULD be a Luna Moth, but there are
13 genetically distinct species in that complex now, and we don't have a
molecular lab in the basement, so I can't tell you for sure..."

ARGH.

Sincerely,


Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
           http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82