From: PO2::"krishtalkal@CLP2.CLPGH.ORG" "Leonard Krishtalka" 16-MAR-1995 15:47:05.45 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Botanical Code Article 71 I will get into trouble for this, but what the hell. Subscribers have been complaining that this listserv does not discuss any interesting biological issues. Here goes. Forget Article 71. As a matter of fact, let's forget the entire Botanical Code AND the Zoo Code. The Linnaean system of nomenclature is a static one devised for a natural world thought to be static, typological and atemporal. As such, that nomenclatural system cannot reflect evolutionary flux across space or through time, and is thus ill-suited for modern neontology or paleontology. Its inadequacies have caused terrible confusion of anagenetic and cladogenetic processes and products ("phyletic species" and cladogenetic species) in paleontology. Nature is not organized around "types". Neither should our system of describing it. Krishtalka From: PO2::"Torsten.Eriksson@botan.su.se" "Torsten Eriksson" 17-MAR-1995 08:35:49.24 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Names, ranks, and monophyletic groups Happily following the first debate on this list since I joined almost ayear ago (!) I have the following comments: There are two or several issues here which are mixed. 1. The problem of giving a unique name to the basic (or fundamental) unit, i.e. what most people think about as species. Let's call it species for the sake of argument, and think of it as a group of organisms in which all are more closely related to each other than to any other organism (an exclusive group, cf. de Queiroz, K., and M. J. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4: 317-338). Some of you have mentioned that there is a problem with names if they are not "names" but numbers: in recognition, spelling etc. Today, however, I don't think that there is any problem in having a "NameBank" which could assign unique identifiers for any species even on an automated basis. Any "palustris", "linnaeana", or "hugh" for that matter would have a unique identifier attached to it maybe like sequences have in GenBank. The argument here is that this is hardly difficult. It is not even very problematic. It is a matter of funding. 2. The second problem is one of grouping and I agree with both Curtis Clark in that grouping is a major part of Systematics, and with David Wright that the problem here is RANKS! A very interesting suggestion on this topic was made by de Queiroz and Gauthier [for example in TREE. 9: 27-31 (1994). "Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature"]. They suggest that ranks should be abandoned, and I agree, since ranks obviously have NO meaning unless they are also monophyletic groups. De Queiroz and Gauthier also suggest that a name, any name, instead could be assigned to a monophyletic group. This monophyletic group would be defined as all the decendants of the closest ancestor of TWO specified species (as used above). I find this suggestion to be very interesting because it would be a way out of the present mess of ranking into a more natural system. In naming a species within its hierarchy, for example, one could use a "phrase", naming the (unique) species, and one or several of the monophyletic groups it belongs to, in order of inclusivity. For example, let's assume a unique species name vesca(XLS8976P) is a species which is included in a monophyletic group "Fragaria" which is included in a monophyletic group "Rosoideae", one could name it: Rosoideae Fragaria vesca(XLS8976P) ...or... Rosoideae vesca(XLS8976P) ...or... Fragaria vesca(XLS8976P) ...or... vesca(XLS8976P) To use just the binary "Fragaria vesca" would not be exact but unproblematical within small monophyletic groups, meaning the species "vesca" within the more inclusive monophyletic group "Fragaria". When it comes to types, I think that they are necessary for species (as used above) for practical purposes, but groups of species should be monophyletic groups - and a monophyletic group can never have ONE type and still have unequivocal borders. To have TWO "type species" as suggested by de Queiroz and Gauthier would solve that problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Torsten Eriksson Botaniska institutionen email: torsten.eriksson@botan.su.se Stockholms universitet tel: +46 8 163868 106 91 Stockholm fax: +46 8 162577 Sweden From: PO2::"mbleeker@EURONET.NL" "Marco_Bleeker" 17-MAR-1995 19:07:49.69 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Binomial elimination >I suggest sticking to the current binomial system. Certainly in the group I >work on (ants) generic names are very useful and convey lots of information. > It's much easier to think in terms of the 300 generic names than it would >be to have 10,000 species names as the basic unit of classification. I second this vote. Anyone who works with large numbers of species, often uses only genus names in dayly conversation. Because the other party might never have heard of the exact same species (name), but could have something interesting to report about a related species (of the same genus). And because large numbers become only managable when dealt with in groups. This has perhaps more to do with the way the human mind works, than with a significant important structure in the natural order 'out there'... I doubt it, but even if this were true, there would still be enough reason to truely honour the genius of mister Linnaeus: allowing us to communicate, and think about nature's diversity. The problem I suppose is, that some people are annoyed by the fact that species names change so often. I think this is more of a professional problem. Objectively, species names DO NOT change often. Only we, who are so close to the source, have to deal with this phenomenon a bit more often than the rest of the world. I think it is a price I gladly pay, because the proposed 'solution' of doing away with larger taxons or even the genusnames, sounds like "throwing the child away with the bathwater", as a proverb in Holland goes. Bye, Marco ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...........Plants, Programs and Primitive creatures .......................................Amsterdam, Holland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: PO2::"arthur@ERIN.GOV.AU" "Arthur Chapman" 17-MAR-1995 20:12:52.09 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Bionomials I have been trying to stay out of this argument, however I can, no longer, restrain myself. I think the discussion has gone off the rails considerably, although I think Kris has gone some way along the line he was after and that is to get people to think about how we do taxonomy and nomenclature in today's world. He has certainly done that. The discussion is not really about whether we use BIONOMIALS or MONONOMIALS or NUMBERS, that is really less an issue of science (except in so far as we use binomials to express relationships) than it is of communication. The purpose of giving something a name is so that you can talk about it to someone else - i.e. to communicate something about that object. If we never wish to talk about an object, then why name it? Names are given to aid communication. Thus, names should be communicatable and understood by all parties in the communication. So much for names. What I think Krishtalka was really on about (and I apologise if I misrepresent you, Kris) is that we have to find new, smarter and "quicker" ways of carrying out biological taxonomy/nomenclature etc. Two hundred and fifty years of Linnean nomenclature and systematics deriving therefrom has lead to the description and naming of only a small percentage (3, 5?) of the organisms present on this earth. Is another 250 years going to bring us up to 6 or 10% - Wow! So how do we overcome this enormous problem? Can we afford to spend months describing in detail for "proper" publication each and every individual species? Is it a worthwhile thing to do? Do we need to do it? Species are, afterall, derived data and "human" concepts. Perhaps, while we grapple with this problem, we need to look at some short- term solutions. To speed up our present methods of operating while we think of more radical alternatives. Some for the melting pot: 1. Begin nomenclature anew from the year 2000. "Freeze" (as already has been mentioned existing names. Forget the historic baggage except where it is of value. Get rid of archaic notions of historic priority whereby some obscure name in a long forgotten nursery catalogue can change existing nomenclature or tie up several botanists for weeks while they attempt to get conservation of the existing name. Reduce the long list of synonyms in publications, many of which carry no value other than to show the diligence of the researcher in looking through obscure historic journals, etc. 2. Develop a system of electronic publication so that new names are immediately available for use. We cannot afford to wait 20 years for someone to finish a big revision before the names are available. Many of the new taxa are quite rare - they need to be included in legislation etc. for protection. Electronic publication of names is not a technical problem - technically it is easy (to also include peer review, etc.). Consider, for example, an electronic journal, accessible via the internet (or by sending a floppy disc to a node) whereby all new taxa are described (it may be a copy of what goes into a hard copy journal in the host country if that is important). Some sort of review process occurs, and once approved that it conforms with the "new" code is accepted and the name placed in a dynamic list of accepted names. 3. Some form of "interim name" formulae be set up - it could be a number system or it could be something like what is used by Botanists in Australia. e.g. "Acacia sp. 'long-leaved' (Smith, A.J. 1234)" or "Acacia sp. 'Jim-Jim Falls" (Smith, A.J. 12233)" etc. Once correctly described, it can be placed in synonymy with the new name. Such a formula can be placed in legislation, gets away from having a whole list of 'Acacia sp. 1', 'Acacia sp. 2' etc. in one institution and the same in another institution, and no one ever knows whether "Acacia sp. 1" in one institution is the same as "Acacia sp. 1" in the second, etc. This methodology retains the type concept by attaching a name to a specimen - I make no apologies for this as I think that if we are going to retain a nomenclature system, then the type concept is as good as any for vouchering that name. What needs to be changed is not the TYPE CONCEPT itself, but how we apply it. - see point 4. 4. When the "New" starting date of 2000 comes in, this should also include some revision of the use of Types. Let us overcome the problem of obscure, badly preserved and inadequate types by creating Neotypes or Lectotypes where appropriate. Remember each name will now date from 2000, and the type likewise can date from then. Of course, not every name could be retypified by 2000 (and shouldn't be - what a waste of time!) but would be done progressively as groups were looked at. This methodology would be used to cement current usage of names with appropriate types chosen. 5. Wherever possible, primary data should be used. Thus the use of character states should be used wherever possible. [Ideally tied to specimens rather than species which are derived, but I am aware of the problem that would create]. Programs, or at least standardised formats, such as DELTA should be standard practice and the information databased and made available. I think that is enough for now - I hope it progresses the debate beyond numbers and "how I can't remember more than three at a time"! arthur ________________________________________________________________________________ Arthur D. Chapman [Scientific Coordinator, Biogeographic Information, ERIN] Environmental Resources Information Network internet: arthur@erin.gov.au GPO Box 787, Canberra, voice: +61-6-274 1066 ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA fax: +61-6-274 1333 From: PO2::"wrightdb@PIGSTY.DENTAL.WASHINGTON.EDU" "David B. Wright" 17-MAR-1995 20:48:53.25 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Binomial elimination (sigh) On Sat, 18 Mar 1995, Marco_Bleeker wrote: > >I suggest sticking to the current binomial system. Certainly in the group I > >work on (ants) generic names are very useful and convey lots of information. > > It's much easier to think in terms of the 300 generic names than it would > >be to have 10,000 species names as the basic unit of classification. > > I second this vote. Anyone who works with large numbers of species, often > uses only genus names in dayly conversation. Because the other party might > never have heard of the exact same species (name), but could have something > interesting to report about a related species (of the same genus). And > because large numbers become only managable when dealt with in groups. This But there would still be *names* (words, not numbers) to use to refer to (monophyletic) groups of species. They just wouldn't be "genus" names, and this first "level" of group membership would not be embedded into the name of every species. It the embedding of these levels or "ranks" into species names that makes Linnaean taxonomy objectionable, not the fact that two names are used... David Wright dwright@u.washington.edu From: PO2::"fuller@U.WASHINGTON.EDU" "Adam Wexler" 17-MAR-1995 23:10:07.30 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: binomial elimination I agree with Norman, nomenclature has nothing to do with biology. It only establishes a convenient set of markers which then can be used to describe the natural world. This is what the code tells us, a type specimen is only there to attach a name to a marker, nothing more. Nomenclature does not deal with evolution, thus the difficulty when infraspecific classification is used. Here biology creeps into nomenclature. Abolishing the Linnaen system would only result in the implementation of another artificial classification scheme. From those suggested by persons such as David Wright, this would be a much more cumbersome, confusing, and illogical system. We are human beings, it is foolish to expect our view of the world to be untainted. If you really want to talk philosophy why don't we discuss if man is natural or artificial -- it has the same value to taxonomy as the current arguement. As to ranks, yes they are artificial, yes they may not really represent true evolutionary lineages, but we DO NOT have the entire picture. Massive phylogenetic surveys (Chase et al. 1990) are a new thing, and one's conclusions are only as good as the bootstrap values on a particular tree branch. Even if we did know the true evolutionary relationships of things, I seriously doubt it would affect our floras. Maybe they would be organized differently, but the keys would still work the same. As for David's last message if we knew which groups were truely monophyletic then yes they would belong to either the same genus or family. The split being dependent on character clustering and ultimately the judgement of the taxonomist working on the group. Taxonomy has always been, and may always be a game of ordering our world. A view which will undoubtably change with every new way in which we percieve our environment. Our current system will evolve just as the organisms which we study, but it works the way it is, and it works well. Theoreticians will always find fault with practical systems, that's the difference between theory and reality! Enough is Enough! Adam Wexler Dept. Of Botany University Of Washington From: PO2::"James_L_REVEAL@UMAIL.UMD.EDU" "jr19" 18-MAR-1995 08:31:19.19 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: A rose by any other name still smells and other nomenclatural matters In reading TAXACOM over the last two days, and now sitting quietly on a peaceful Saturday morning with the spring flowers coming into their first blush, I realize that I am now old. History is always so short-lived in the memories of humans. Am I the only one who can remember Sydney Gould and his efforts to convert the world of botanical names to numbers in the 1950s? I was not aware of this effort at the time, but in being introduced into the world of systematics his ideas were presented... but yes, that was in the 1960s when systematics was taught in ways not done at present. And I am the only person who has ever dealt with the likes of Necker and his uninomial system of nomenclature? True, the Linnaeans carried the day and at present the name of Necker only shows up in the IBCN as an author who works are rejected. Was there a reason why Necker's ideas failed more than two centuries ago? Surely I can not be the only professor in academia who mentioned in systematic classes that while species might have some basis in reality, all of the other ranks are ranks of convenience for humans to communicate, albeit poorly, the abstracts of relationships as we understand them at any given moment. And, dear students, please understand that those relationships (as we understand them) constantly change for we humans are not as yet very good is seeing into the past and following the evolutionary history of every single individual so as to ascertain once and for all each and every turn in the evolutionary history of a single species in relation to all others. Human failings do not necessarily come as a result of the following of some ancient practice. Plants arranged by use with vulgar names was once a reasonable and logical way to classify. It fulfilled the needs of the day. In time, use evolve into morphological features and vulgar names into polynomials -- that too worked for a time. But new knowledge demanded new ways of arranging and expressing observations. Ray and Tournefort attempted to bring a more natural arrangement of kinds into focus only to find their efforts changed by Linnaeus who, for purely practical reasons, abandoned all pretense of a natural system for an artifical one. To be sure, Adanson, Durande and a host of others challenged this artifical method and refined their views early, as did Batsch and Augier -- probably all, save Adanson, unknown to most modern systematists. These people challenged the Prince of Botany, and lost. In time, in England, James Smith would be successfully overthrown by John Lindley, and Torrey would join the efforts of Nuttall and of Eaton and cast aside those in the New World who held to the Linnaean ways. Identifications could be done more precisely with a more natural scheme of classification which could be expressed by a nomenclature that established ranks. Do you see what was set aside? Not the binomial system, not the names, not even the circumscriptions of certain taxa, but the way one arranged plants into an overall system of classification, and how one identified species. If memory serves me right, the idea of botanical nomenclature, even from the days of Aristole, was to convey an essence or concept that another could comprehend in an exact and concise way. What we seem to be faced with today is how to maintain the essence and still convey an every changing concept of the relationship of one entity to another in a useful fashion. The beauty of binomial nomenclature is that is allows one to express in a small way the presumed first level of relationship. This particular kind (a species) is related to other kinds all of whom belong to a group (a genus). The beauty of the rules of nomenclature is that it permits individuals to differ in their assumptions of that first level of relationship -- an individual species may or may not be assigned to a particular genus, it may be put in another genus. To be sure, even in doing this, complex evolutionary relationships among several different kinds can not always be eloquently expressed. One of the failings of the present codes of nomenclature, as stated by some, is that there are not enough ranks to adequately expression relationships among the individual species. Yet, given the assumed levels of complexity that might exist, how many modern systematist use all currently available? Except for a few workers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, who divided their genera into numerous fine units, as well as their species, no one has ever taken full advantage of all available, recognized ranks. And according to the botanical code, one can have an infinite number! The proposed solution to the notion that one can not possibly express all relationships is to reduce all names of a single name, set of numbers, or code. Will this work? Return to history. Why did Linnaeus abandon polynomials for binomials? To be sure there were practical reasons (indexing of names, and there use by the uninformed (students and universities did not make Linnaeus a wealthy person, persons of station did, namely those who wish to talk about plants in a more simple and less complex way), but there was also the fact that as new discoveries were made each would require polynomials of already established names to be altered. What Linnaeus did was come upon a simple and effective way of stablizing names of organisms so that as new information was learned, already existing names did not require alteration. Where Gould failed is that in assigning numbers he based his numbers on persumed relationships (ah yes, that human failing again) so that the numbers had to change as relationships were altered. Again, the problem of the polynomial. By assigning names, numbers or codes in a truly random fashion this could be eliminated. But, even in doing this, as already pointed out, we are faced with the ever present problem of differences in opinion generally expressed as "lumpers vs. slippers." And there is the problem of new knowledge. Even with random names, numbers or codes, what will we be doing with them -- arranging them into higher ordinal groupings. In short, we will continue to classify. Furthermore, without some reasonable way of classifying objects, how can anyone know if something is known or unknown? The ugly spector of identification intrudes upon nomenclature. The reason we have names is to classify and identify. Remember the three basic tenets of taxonomy: identify, name and classify. All three are handmaidens, no one more supreme than the other. Each must be orderly. I must be getting old. The great debate that happened when Linnaeus proposed his method was not about his nomenclature -- those who disagreed such as John Hill, Philip Miller, and others simply proposed new names -- and in fact most liked his simple, albeit artificial way to identify plants (simple count the parts then read the descriptions and diagnoses), but where many parted company with Linnaeus was in his classification scheme. Few remember (my old age comes into play here) that Linnaeus did have a natural system of classification and did arrange his genera into "fragmenta" or what would now be called "families." Even the Prince acknowledged that at this stage in the development of systematic knowledge, with more and more of the world being explored, it was more important to have a means to identify (and thus know what we know) than to judge the true relationships among what was known. This view was not held by Adanson, Durande and Batsch who preceded A.L. de Jussieu's efforts to establish a more natural system of classification, nor the efforts of the like of Augier, Coffin and others who promoted natural systems before John Lindley and John Torrey. What these rebels did was acknowledge that relationships expressed by the sum of features was more fundamental than associations artifically created by a few. If the goal of modern systematics is to expressed relationships then use language and systems of classification to do just that. It does and will come at a cost. It requires knowledge of the group, to be sure, but it must also require scholarship. And that means one must look back and see what was done in the past, check types, review the literature, find those obscure names and long ignored and forgotten authors, and by the proper and knowledgeable use of the codes put it all together. And, by the way, how many of you objected to the concept of NCUs at the last botanical congress? What I hear all too often is "I want to study biology, not nomenclature" and to that I respond then you also want to avoid scholarship in your science. A rose, by any other name, may smell just as sweet, but without a means of providing a common understanding of the words "rose", "smell" and "sweet" we have no understanding at all. Jim Reveal (MARY) From: PO2::"James_L_REVEAL@UMAIL.UMD.EDU" "jr19" 19-MAR-1995 09:31:09.25 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Nomenclature vs. Systems of Classification The question was asked, what changes can be made in the future that might address some of the probems discussed recently on TAXACOM. Firstly, I think it is important to differentiate between what is identification, nomenclature and classification, and the way each is addressed especially in practice. Identification is the mere recognition that something exists and that the object in question is distinguishable by some means from other objects. The process of identification is a result of our human ability to discriminate between objects in ways unique to our species. Nomenclature is the mere application of some symbol to denote an identified object; its purpose is to provide a means of communicating an impression of an object to another. Classification is much more complex. Object can be identified and named without classifying them; yet, as humans, almost immediately upon being introduced to an object, even without a name, it is classified. Furthermore, there are levels of sophistication relative to our human-based means of classifying objects, with the nomenclature used expressing one or more levels: "This thing is a plant." "This thing is a green plant." This thing is a green, vascular plant." This thing is a green, vascular plant with petals." This is a flowering plants." This is a daisy." "An English daisy." "Bellis perennis." Each expression conveys a level of sophistication about a classification scheme; each assumes a level of sophistication on the part of both the person making the statement and the one receiving the statement. Just listen to people talk about any object. The degree to which an object is identified and named will be reflected in the level of sophistication in the way the object is classified. When it comes to biology, the objects themselves tend to be grouped before one even begins to name or classify, but not always. As humans we tend to identify and name other humans on an individual bases. Yet, when we are unable to identify particularly individuals, we shift both our nomenclature and our classification to a higher level. Yet, once again, depending upon the circumstances, the nomenclature shifts to reflect our impression of the level of sophistication of the receiver to comprehend what we are trying to convey. "That's Robert Jones." "He's a taxonomist." "He's a zoologist." "He's a biologist." "He's a scientist." When it comes to other biological objects, we tend to group even more. While I might name all of my horses, except for a limited few the term "horses" is much more informative than "Araby" or "Starr" or some other specific name. Aside from pets (in a broad sense), as already noted by others in this discussion, we do not, as humans, individually name all of the members of a group. Here we revert back to a more general nomenclature which reflects a higher order of classification. For example, biologists use a system of classification by which other living objects are classified into species, genera, families, orders, etc. Each taxon for a particular kind has a name; each name conveys a concept that becomes both more general and less exclusive as one proceeds through the levels of hierarchy. Given my particular level of ignorance, if someone mentioned to me a particular species name for an ant it would be meaningless (except, perhaps what the scientific name might mean). Even a generic name would like not convey any particular image. But ant, ah now I have at least a general concept. In the TAXACOM discussions so far, I fear that some have not always maintained a clear distinction between nomenclature and classification. Some have called for a single name, number or code that would identify a species. The purpose of this suggestion, as I understand it, is to allow the maximum amount of classification possible without biasing the information by putting, a priori, some modification that reflects a relationship. Inasmuch as the rank "genus" denotes a group which in all likelihood has no biological significance in nature, why associate any species with any other species except through its own particular ancestory? This I suggest is a worthy goal but one that I fear is not attainable. I keep asking my students to please discover the secret to Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine, but alas no one has yet come forth. And consider this. Even if we knew the history of each and every species that has ever existed on this planet do any of you think for a single moment that each species will not be arranged into broader and broader groups? Of course they will. Neither code prevents anyone from placing all living creatures in a single genus and thereby establishing in effect a single name for each without biasing the information by grouping them. What the codes prohibit is the use of numbers or codes unless those numbers or codes are treated as Latin. This is not difficult to overcome. In short, the codes do not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do when it comes to establishing a means of communicating about new, as yet to be described species. True, both codes today restrict the wholesale changing of all names. But even this is not all that difficult. Let's put all biological things in the genus Magnolia. This is a Linnaean name and predates essentially all zoological names at the genus rank. Now, in 1753 Linnaeus used the specific epithet "virginiana" numerous times, including Magnolia virginiana. The codes say one must use, in this case, "virginiana", but all other species that currently bear this epithet would have to have another name. As one would be readily use up existing Latin names following the rules of priority, soon the vast majority of Latin names would be exhausted and one could turn to a more formulated set of randomly generated letters and/or numbers all Latinized! Remember, into the genus Magnolia we are placing several million species. In short, the codes are not preventing anyone from establishing a rather different way of classifying or naming biological entities. Now, when it comes to identification, codes do not come into play but systems of classification frequently do. Here is the key. As long as the rule of the game is that each unique kind must have its own unique name (which after all is the only way we can have sound, scientific communication; e.g., avoiding common or vulgar names) then all of the kinds must be identifiable. Codes do not constrain identification, failures in systems of classification do. I do not see how, given the dynamics of the Code, anyone is constrained in establishing a system of classification. The codes do not affect methods of identifications at all. Allow me to turn to the current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and provide some suggestions that might address some of the concerns raised on TAXACOM. The present Code allows conservation of names at the ranks of family, genus and species. The Code also allows the rejection of any name regardless of rank. One suggestion is to allow conservation at all ranks where priority is a factor (family and below). I have been asked by the International Association for Plant Taxonomists to review, between 1994 and 1999, suprageneric names for extant vascular plants. The task is a substantial undertaking, and one, I fear, that will result in the killing of the messenger. In working with family names in association with the late Ru Hoogland, we discovered numerous names of families validly published long before what is given in App. IIB of the Code. We pointed these out to the botanical community, and there is now a statement in the Code which acknowledges the fact that some of the bibliographic references should be corrected, but this is not to be done at this time. A second suggestion is to allow conservation of both name and bibliographic information. I raise these two points in order to give the following example: Most workers in systematics know the subfam. Maloideae, a taxon within Rosaceae. This name was proposed in 1964 because the previously used name, Pomaceae or Pomeae or Pomoideae, according to the Code, was illegitimate. However, no one did the necessary homework to discover that in 1835 G.T. Burnett proposed Pyroideae. As some workers reduce the genus Malus to Pyrus, I can assure you that the two names have for all practical purposes the same circumscription. Thus, the earliest name for the maloid roses is Pyroideae. Except for a handful of people currently, no one is aware of this. Conservation would allow Maloideae to remain in current use if conservation were extended to other ranks. Rejection of Pyroideae in this instance is not a valid suggestion, because while I might be of the opinion that Malus and Pyrus belong to the same subfamily, someone else might not concur. Rejection would therefore restrict the taxonomic freedom of another were it exercised in this instance. The concept of NCU (names in current use) was adopted by the Zoological community but rejected by the botanical community. One reason for the failure was the assumed lack of scholarship in the proposed lists. Having worked on that for vascular plant family names for more than four years, I reject this excuse. However, I did not then, and do not now, appreciate the fact that NCU provisions allowed invalid names to be valid, and earlier, valid places of publication to be ignored. A final suggestion: Let us approve the concept of NCU and then provide a mechanism for submissions and for evaluation and approval of each list. But, in submitting any list for consideration, the researcher must do the scholarly research to resolve the nomenclature. This will do due justice to those numerous workers who have been ignored or forgotten who have made significant contribution -- an objection by many -- and it will stablize nomenclature to a signicant degree -- the desire of many. NCU provisions do not inhibit the rights of others to modify the taxonomy of a taxon. New taxonomic knowledge will always alter nomenclature. What I would like to see ended is old nomenclature altering established nomenclature especially after an effort has been made to resolve the matter as thoroughly as possible. Frankly, when it all boils down to a few modifications, simply allowing conservation at all ranks where priority is in effect would resolve much of the nomenclatural instability that we have, and if that were coupled with the simultaneous conservation of the place of publication, the problem of finding an earlier valid place of publication of a name would be resolved. But to those out there who are not in systematics, nothing will prevent, nor should prevent, new knowledge about the taxonomy of a taxon from altering its established nomenclature. Jim Reveal (MARY) From: PO2::"peterr@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU" "Peter Rauch" 19-MAR-1995 12:29:30.85 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Taxa as hypotheses Cross-posting of John Alroy's message from paleonet: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 18:51:44 -0700 From: John Alroy To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: Re: Taxa as hypotheses Random philosophical comment in reply to Lipps. Ignore if you've had your fill of hot air for the day. I agree with Lipps that all taxa are hypotheses, at least in the sense of the term he uses. I also agree that traditional taxonomy is advantageous insofar as it helps us to keep our hypotheses clear and reproducible by means of holotypes, priority, grammatical rules, etc. However, because this argument applies most directly to the genus and/or species level it does _not_ endorse the Linnean hierarchy. The higher-taxon Linnean rank system does nothing in particular to clarify hypotheses; all it does is impose upon us an a priori notion that organisms fall in hierarchical groups that align into a fixed number of ranks. As was pointed out earlier, this is a static, non-evolutionary viewpoint and utterly unrealistic regardless of whether you are a strict cladist when it comes to classification. If we abolished artificial ranks, we could still apply the laws of priority/type concept/etc. to higher taxa, thereby maintaining clarity and increasing flexibility. From: PO2::"peterr@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU" "Peter Rauch" 19-MAR-1995 12:31:19.45 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Taxa as hypotheses Cross-posting of Jere Lipps' message from paleonet: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 18:39:30 PST To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk From: jlipps@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU (Jere H. Lipps) Subject: Re: Taxa as hypotheses The Linnean hierarchies are hypotheses too. In this sense they can be useful. I see nothing static in hypothesis testing at all. It is the stuff of science. Evolution is some sort of branching process, and the branches can be labeled any way you want. Those are acceptable hypotheses obviously. The point is to make progress in our science by hypothesis testing, and it seems to me that taxonomists/sytematists/cladists sometimes try to get "the final answer" rather than to develop and test hypotheses. Just trying to frame it a different way. >Random philosophical comment in reply to Lipps. Ignore if you've had >your fill of hot air for the day. > ...etc., etc.... [I removed the fully-copied included message from Jere's note. PAR] From: PO2::"peterr@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU" "Peter Rauch" 19-MAR-1995 12:34:21.73 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Re: Taxa as hypotheses Cross-posting of John Alroy from paleonet: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 20:04:38 -0700 From: John Alroy To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: Re: Taxa as hypotheses Further hot air, sorry all. My earlier post was vague, probably due to computer jockeying-induced burnout. My complaints were about the Linnean _ranks_, not about having a taxonomic hierarchy of some kind. One literally could identify all higher taxa as nodes on a cladogram, throwing the names out completely (admittedly not much fun), and still have a classification qualifying as a taxonomic hierachy. What makes the Linnean hierarchy "Linnean" is not just the type of names that are used or the hierarchy being a hierarchy in a literal sense, but the use of ranks. Ranks do not qualify as hypotheses, as I'm sure Dr. Lipps will agree. They are defined on grounds of priority or on no grounds at all - do I call Aves a "Class," "Subclass," "Order," "Family," or what? Given the deeply nested position of Aves within Dinosauria, there seems no rational basis for deciding this other than an appeal to priority, and no sense in which a "hypothesis" concerning this issue could be tested. This is the sort of concern that motivates some cladists to ignore Linnean ranks - including myself, if a person who is not entirely set against paraphyletic groups qualifies as a cladist. From: PO2::"peterr@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU" "Peter Rauch" 19-MAR-1995 12:36:09.68 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: Taxa as hypotheses? Cross-posting of Norm MacLeod from paleonet: Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 11:11:29 GMT To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk From: N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (N. MacLeod) Subject: Taxa as hypotheses? Perhaps I'm taking Jere's point to literally here but if taxa were hypotheses (and just hypotheses) there should be some way to objectively (parsimoniously?) decide which of n possible Linnean-compatible taxonomic assignments was best, at least given available information. I know of no way to do this and I think the highly disputative nature of much of the taxonomic literature stands as a testament to its impossibility. Linnean nomenclature is about communication. That's all. Thus, we have statements like "Genus Z of Prof. Whatshisname includes species that Dr. I.M. Insane places into three different genera and two different families." and no way, other than arbitrary convention, of resolving the issue. In the final analysis this has nothing to do with evolution, biology, or even science. It's a short-hand we use that arose as a matter of historical accident and that we keep using (despite all of its well-known shortcomings) as a result of tradition and because no one has come up with anything better. I look at it one of those frustrating yet, at the same time, endearing curiosities that seem to insinuate their way into most long-term human activities, and which suggest that deep-down humans are not wholly logical creatures. Norm MacLeod ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Norman MacLeod Senior Scientific Officer N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (Internet) N.MacLeod@uk.ac.nhm (Janet) Address: Dept. of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Office Phone: 071-938-9006 Dept. FAX: 071-938-9277 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PO2::"ertter@UCJEPS.HERB.BERKELEY.EDU" "barbara ertter" 19-MAR-1995 13:31:13.39 To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM CC: Subj: does every individual belong to a species? Might as well throw my two-bits into the discussion on binomials: 1) In addition to other problems with uninomials, as eloquently discussed by others, is the assumption that all individuals can unequivocally be matched with a species name, uninomial or binomial. This is probably heresy, but, as a specialist on plants that appear to give only lip service to species concepts, I've become comfortable with the idea that this ain't necessarily so. A rose can be a rose can be a rose without necessarily being a particular species of rose (I've certainly given up on most of the ones in my garden, anyhow!) As is, I can still call it Rosa, but what uninomial would I refer to it by? Would insisting that it be given one be elucidation or obfuscation, given the probable reticulate nature of its ancestry? Furthermore, is this situation the exception, or more the rule than our current mindset lets us perceive? 2) Also well established, brains deal best with words, computers with numbers. Which should be the tail, which the dog? My proposal is that we stick with Linnaean binomial nomenclature, which has overall withstood the selection pressures of the test of time, with some of the refinements suggested, for most of our human communicative purposes. This does not preclude, however, a new computer coding created that would reside transparently behind the names in the computer domain, cross-referenced to and linking together all the nomenclatural (and taxonomic?) synonyms that, independent of where we go from here, will reamin forever in the pre-2000 literature. 3) Suggested reading: 1. Any book on fuzzy logic 2. "She Unnames Them" , 3 pp. short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, published in "Buffalo Gals and Other Animal Presences", which begins "Most of them accepted namelessness with the perfect indifference with which they had so long accepted and ignored their names". Helps keep your sense of perspective ... Barbara Ertter University and Jepson Herbaria ertter@ucjeps.herb.berkeley.edu