Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.07.09 at 14:22:26(6987) -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Sunday, July 08, 2001 12:15 PM Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle Bravo!!!! VERY well said, Eduardo! You could not have said it any clearer, even in 'Tarzan' English! Julius +More >>C?mon, guys... I know you must be driving crazy with all the names changing all the time, but I don?t think we should try to freeze an evolving science. I know sometimes it is painful when you have to change your concepts, but it is part of the life. The advent of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature can be considered an important event in Botany, because Botany looked like the Tower of Babel before it. The Code were designed to keep stability of names, so we use the concept of priority. The correct name is the first effectively published. The circunscription of names can change, but they follow rules that can be understood if you want. Some people think it would be great if we could use the "easiest" name, instead of the earliest. I agree it would make some things easier, but we would implode the stability. Who has to decide when something has to change? What if someone is not happy? Can He/she change it again? Believe me: If there we had not the Code, the names would change even more... Let?s face it. We don?t have to write in our scientific books that primitive humans had dinossaurs as pets just because almost everybody in world really thinks it is true (blame Fred Flintstone!). Any misconception should be corrected, even when more than half of the humans think it is true. And what should be considered "majority"? I don?t think Chinese people call Epipremnum as pothos. They will be considered majority in anything soon! Is plant taxonomy for the whole Mankind or just for Americans? We are paid to keep the names well applied, so we do it. If you want imutable names, don?t use Linnean binomials! Call your plant Sliurneht, or Grumpflilit or even Catiripapo... If you want to be scientific (that is what you are doing when you say Pothos or Calla) you have to follow the law (i.e., the Code). People has used this pseudoscience to sell plants. Scientific names can rise the prices, because they give the impression that they know exactly what they are selling, but it isn?t true. If plant sellers are not able to offer a correct Linnean name for the plants they sell, they SHOULD NOT USE IT, or they are just fooling people. I can give you an example: Let?s suppose you have bought something called Calla, a pink Calla. You can see some information about it on internet. It says Calla is a circunboreal genus with only one species that use to grow in bogs. So you killed your only Zantedeschia rehmanii treating it like it was Calla palustris... That?s the problem in having horticultural names being used like this... Many of you in Aroid-L know that I am a plant taxonomist that do not love all the aspects of the linnean taxonomy, mainly because it is not efficient in dealing with evolving things. However, it is the best way we have to describe biodiversity, so I still use it. I agree that some of plant taxonomists change names for some weird vanity, but most of us are working hard to make the overwhelming diversity more understandable. Do not blame us. Nature itself was already pretty confused when we arrived with the tags! It is easy when you consider a few plants you have in your garden, but try to face the hell in the wild... Nomenclatural cheers, Eduardo.<<

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