[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Bambiraptor feinbergi

Dinogeorge wrote:

<< I think a lot of taxonomists, and other scientists as well, would 
disagree. I 
 certainly disagree. On both points. >>


Because taxonomy, like morphology, ecology, physiology, stratigraphy, and so 
forth, is a tool for organizing and understanding data, and matters of 
nomenclature are a critical part of that tool. Which is why we have rules, 
the written kind that the ICZN manages, and the unwritten kind, that ought to 
be almost as important. Nomenclature isn't something inconvenient to be 
quickly dispensed with, an inconvenient prologue to some part of biology that 
you might personally happen to find more interesting. The naming of a new 
dinosaur may be a relatively simple matter, but it should still be handled as 
rigorously and thoughtfully (and respectfully) as the study of its evolution 
or habits.

But then I've never found anything tedious about taxonomy. Quite the 
opposite. One person's "tedium" is another's fascination.

Caitlin R. Kiernan (who freely admits to finding the BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE almost as fascinating as JVP, and has been known to read the 
etymological portion of a type description first)