The Code---mutable or not

[Michael Gochfeld]

At the risk of incurring Mary Beth's wrath. 

Ron wrote: 
Anyone who does not own a copy of The International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN) Vol. 4 should not even be opening their mouth about
taxonomy. Even many who do have a copy don't _understand_  how it works.
Taxonomists are not free to do what ever they want. The International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature is structured to bring immutability to 
organic defination and communication. Popular butterfly authors often
work outside these rules and have screwed things up quite a bit.
==================
There's something almost biblical in that proclamation (is that an 
accident, Ron?). 

But it's important to recognize that the code itself is mutable. It 
changes (albeit ponderously) to reflect the state of the cultures of 
systematics, taxonomy, and nomenclature, which are NOT AT ALL the same 
thing. 

Systematics is the study of the relationships

Taxonomy is the practice of classifying things (not necessarily by 
relationships. Read for example the numerical taxonomists who were 
primarily entomologists)

Nomenclature is the practice of giving names.  

The discussion has really been about nomenclature in the hope (held to 
differing degrees by the various discussants) that it reflects 
relationships. 

The code is primarily about nomenclature. As I read it taxonomy is only 
the underpinning. 

Mike Gochfeld


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl