>My intended point was that in my opinion large heaps of polychaete
>"species" are complete rubbish - worthless - obfuscating - a large waste of
>everybodies time - why on earth did they do that, there is no justification -
>well, you get the picture.
Nothing special for polychaetes I believe. For the majority of the
described species there is no or extremely weak connotations between
our observations (some characters), and the statement we make (gene
flow, reproductive recognition... the list is long...)
>> flexuosus in the literature occurs as:
>> Nereis flexuosa
>> Stephania flexuosa
>> Ophiodromus flexuosus
>>In their eras all better identifiers, and information conveyers than the
>epithet alone which is insufficiently unique. In my opinion :-)
Again, I don't think the homonymy thing is that big a problem, but there
are a number of proposed solutions for unique and stable names of
species, all of which I think are much better than the changing binomina.
Anyhow, as you might have guessed, I'm not very interested in naming
that kind of entities.
>> No, it's not the point. For one thing the informal name "Zmyrina" refers
>>to a
>> clade and not a species, so "sp" would have been rather confusing. And I
>> didn't want to give it a formal name since I had only weak evidence for the
>> delineation of the group, and thought that there was a great risk for
>>future
>> changes. Since it nevertheless was practical to talk about it I gave an
>> informal name.
>>But why? Why not something neutral and objective like "fine capillary
>group"? It looks like you're either staking a claim for the future or don't
>have a developed terminology.
I fail to see that "fine capillary group" is more neutral or objective than
"Zmyrina". It's just names. "Developed terminology": I don't understand
the point. I avoided a formal taxon name simply because I was uncertain
about the delineation of the group. Maybe that's a stake for the future, but
what's the problem with that?
> I'm wondering why in the Heteropodarke paper is the
>Crassichaeta, apparently a necessary new name to encompass a mere
>three species which might equally have been simply called the enlarged
>anterior falciger group or the Heteromorpha-Lyonsi-Xiamenensis group. A
>proliferation of sorts, perhaps to make a point, I don't know. Two other
>groups of two each went unnamed.
I don't think we have to name each group we recognise. Names are
convenient when we want to discuss things. I chose Crassichaetae
because it's an easily identified and well delineated group within
Heteropodarke. Many identifiers (including this one) may have problems
separating heteromorpha from lyonsi from, for example, incomplete
specimens. Crassichaetae on the other hand will be much easier. Sure, I
could have used Heteromorpha-Lyonsi-Xiamenensis group, but that
system would be a bit cumbersome for more inclusive groups like, say,
Arthropoda... And I certainly wouldn't make any statement whatsoever
about how many species Crassichaetae is encompassing.
>The alternatives have a long way to go yet,
>and to me at the moment a uninominal alternative is not sufficiently
>attractive or inherently superior, or more convenient, or without drawbacks,
> to the essentials of the Linnaean system. These are genus species in a
>family (Yes, I know there's really a continuum), with the occasional
>introduction of new genera (or clade names) when utterly compelling for a
>large group of taxa. Let the cladograms roll out but don't get bogged in
>naming the (possibly shortlived) minutiae.
I think the whole of this discussion confuses three issues:
1) What we should name
2) How we should define these names
3) What form the names should have
To me it's easy:
1) Since I don't think we should try to name entities for which we do not
have any reasonable evidence, I avoid species, and advocate that we
name only clades.
2) These names are defined by reference to a tree, and without rank
allocations.
3) Since I don't want to describe species I don't have any use for the
binomials.
Yes, the alternatives may have a long way to go. It's a new system being
formulated right now, and it is competing with the Linnean one which has
been developed the last 250 years. I think the drawbacks with the
Linnean system are serious enough to make it worthwhile. What has
happened the last 25 or so years in systematics is the elaboration of
tree-thinking which in my view is a very strong tool in understanding the
diversity of life. I find it interesting (and challenging) to be part in the
development of a system to name this diversity.
Fredrik
__________________________________________________________
Fredrik Pleijel
Biologie des Invertébrés marins, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
57, rue Cuvier
75231 Paris Cedex 05
tel: 33(0)1 40 79 31 12
fax: 33(0)1 40 79 31 09
__________________________________________________________
-- ANNELIDA
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
--
