Just some thoughts (without meaning to over-extend this discussion..) - I'll
assume two main aims for faunal analyses (aside from mapping studies)
are: 1) to describe the type and 'function' of faunal assemblages using
knowledge of the habitat preferences of the sampled taxa and 2) to
document the distribution of individuals within taxa and any statistical
correlations with other variables.
In 1), taxon names are simply a shorthand way of conveying information
about organisms. The level of detail required depends on the audience. We
communicate quite well with uninomial common names, so I personally
don't have a problem talking about an area dominated by the
suspensivorous fanworm Papillosa (Euchone, Sabellinae, Sabellidae) Sars,
1851. By writing Papillosa (E. or whatever) with a capital P, I communicate
that there are other lower taxa within Papillosa, (currently a complicated list
of much-changed 'sub-species' names and synonyms). The level of
Papillosa might be enough for an ecological study. In a taxonomic study,
we might wish to address the least inclusive taxonomic units (LITU, Peijel &
Rouse 2000) within Papillosa. We can choose the inclusiveness of the
group according to the level of detail required, and happily, all levels say
something about relationships. Aha, an ecological study looking at real
groups...
In 2), taxon names are used as statistical units, in which case uninomials
and binomials function equally well, the computer doesn't notice the
difference. The more inclusive taxa also would be entered into the database,
just exactly as for today's higher taxa. The operator is given the LITU,
together with the more inclusive taxon names, so I doubt if those
interpreting the results will notice too much difference either. It may end
in a discussion of the order of the columns containing the LITUs and more
inclusive taxon names, but the faunal information is the same.
Compiling long-term faunal data-series is an ecologist's nightmare, due to
nomenclatural changes and between-operator differences in detail. The
LITU concept may just simplify standardisation of faunal lists because the
definition of the taxon names do not change, only their inclusiveness.
Names may be added to increase the information content, but names don't
change as such. The feared situation of ecologists not recognising 'new'
names for taxa just won't occur, because any additional clade names are
always accompanied by the existing ones. For those wishing to squeeze
taxon names into a convenient artificial hierarchy, then of course a flexible
uninomial system is awkward, because faunal analyses cannot be done at
pre-defined higher taxonomic 'levels'. But then, those interested in a
meaningful assessment of groups of taxa won't be doing this anyway.
with best wishes,
Sabine Cochrane
p.s. I don't usually call myself Cochrane Sabine, but even so, it wouldn't
change my identity or my behaviour ;-)
Sabine Cochrane
Akvaplan-niva
Polar Environmental Centre
9296 Tromsø
Norway
Tlf: +47 777 50327
Fax: +47 777 50301
email: Sabine.Cochrane at akvaplan.niva.no
see also: http://www.akvaplan.niva.no/
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
