Chris.Glasby at nt.gov.au wrote:
> However, the proliferation of names under phylogenetic nomenclature will
> not create chaos if a rule-set is adopted that sets the 'phylo-names' apart
> from existing 'Linnaean' names (like a prefix or suffix symbol which has
> been suggested on Taxacom, and which I like).
A compromise obviously has to be negotiated, otherwise the "nightmare"
that Greg referred to will seem tame compared to the maintenance of two
parallel classification schemes caused by two polarized points of view.
Systematists need to be reminded that the larger community of biologists,
ecologists, and regulators rely on them to provide up-to-date names for
the organisms on which they conduct their studies. While I am
supportive of changes to the Linnaean system, and am a person who is
willing to take a 180-degree turn, keep in mind that changes to the
manner in which we name organisms will have impacts far beyond
systematic biology. For example, regulators at agencies such as the
U.S. EPA will not give a hoot about the theory behind names being used;
all they want is a practical and simple way to understand if the worms and
clams that are colonizing a formerly contaminated site mean that their
efforts at mitigation have been successful. A system that provides
simple, practically applied names for the fauna and flora are what these
folks need to make their decisions. If we provide otherwise, there will be
a lot of frustration and finger pointing.
>Otherwise I think we are in for a rocky ride ....
As I said, the gauntlet has been thrown down.......
Jim
--
James A. Blake, Ph.D.
ENSR Marine & Coastal Center
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Tel: (508) 457-7900 (w)
Tel: (781) 585-5822 (h)
FAX: (508) 457-7595
<jablake at ix.netcom.com>
-- 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
--
