Re: The Dark Side of Taxonomy, part III: "Resistance is

From: Endangered Species <especies at ix.netcom.com> on 1996.12.30 at 15:38:30(26) At 11:28 AM 12/29/96 -0600, NAME \"Wilbert Hetterscheid\" wrote: >Ladies & people, > >It is obvious that understanding the dark world of name chan- >ges is a many-headed monster to conquer for taxonomists. The >latest contributions to the debate (Herman, Hermine, Jim >Waddick) merit some comments: > >Herman (25 December): I am sorry that your English didn't >allow you to understand the finer details of my contribution >but since we know each other personally, I will tell you more >in Dutch when we meet again. A few points though that may be >of interest to others as well: I agree that an ongoing debate >between "guttatum" and "venosum" would seem to be a sign of >improper work and it MAY even be so! However, one of the main >problems taxonmists have with the nomenclature rules of the >Botanical Code is that the rules are NOT always unambiguous. I >consider it the main flaw of a code that purports to support >stability in nomenclature. You wouldn't believe the endless >debates over the interpretation of certain rules in the Code. >It is deeply regrettable that this is still happening. Recent- >ly I asked an opinion on the discussion list TAXACOM about a >Latin diagnosis of a newly described Amorphophallus species >from China. The diagnosis consisted of ca. 20% Latin words, >50% hybrid words (Latin/English) and the rest English. The >code requires "A LATIN diagnosis", so I assumed that this name >was therefore invalidly published because the diagnosis was a >mixture of two languages and one speech-inability. To my utter >surprise, I found that some taxonomists (and some with BIG >names!) "interpreted" the Code rule so as to ALLOW for percen- >tages of other languages than Latin. Now HOW am I to know this >as a reader and user of the Code?? The result is that I think >the name is invalidly published but at the same time it is >accepted in Index Kewensis, an authoritative listing of new >species names!!!! THAT is what drives people crazy. I am sorry >I have to apologise for my colleagues about this but there it >is. The outcome of the TAXACOM debate is like 50% for, and 50% >against! WHAT a great help it is to have that Botanical Code!! > >Other questions by Herman: > >- a proposed name change as part of new scientific enquiry is >published in a scientific journal. There's no High Court that >decides whether a scientist is right or wrong. Philosophically >there is often no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in scienti- >fic debate. There is "bad" and "good" hypotheses and often a >majority decides what is "bad" or "good". > >- there ARE however international nomeclature committees that >deal with name change proposals that are AGAINST the rules of >the Code but seem important as tools in stabilisation. Suppose >that everybody uses Sauromatum venosum and I found that it >ought to be S. guttatum and I feel that the whole world would >suffer from that proposal, I might ask this committee to >decide to conserve S. venosum AGAINST the rules of the Code. >So there is a kind of judge in all this. The decision of that >committee will be ratified by an international congress every >five years, so there IS some democracy (taxocracy?) in our >circles. +More > >- for an international committee to accept a proposal, one >needs a 2/3rd majority I recall. > >Hermine (27 December): well, I guess you have been bitten more >severely by a nasty taxonomy bug. I don't know if I can ever >convince you of the better parts of our trade but I guess I >have tried my level best. Some people just never............ > >As to your Rose complaint: there is an organisation called >International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS, part of >UNESCO!) that has a Horticultural Registration Commission. >This commission appoints International Registration Authori- >ties (IRAs) that register all new cultivars of a certain crop >(often a genus) all over the world. In case of roses that is >the AMERICAN (where YOU live) Rose Society. I am surprised >that you never heard of that. Maybe you SHOULD ask sometimes >to get educated. It helps! In 1993 a checklist of 41.000 (!!) >cultivar names in Camellia was published (Savige, 1993) by the >International Camellia Society! Again, a question might have >helped you and saved you from irritation. There are many, many >more such lists and societies. They are all listed in the >latest edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for >Cultivated Plants. > >To Jim waddick (28 December): thanks Jim for your supporting >mail. It puts in other words what I've been trying to say. I >hope it made a few extra "converts". > >Cheers to you all, >Wilbert > > Somebody must be ruuning amok doing a good impression of me and yelling "I don't want to get educated!" If you see this person, dial 411 immediately. It ain't me, babe. Hermine

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.