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

Re: [Making Up Names _versus_ Emending Names]

Ken Kinman (kinman@usa.net) wrote:

<I'm sure a large majority on this list hate ranks,>

  I wouldn't say "hate." The majority I'm aware have logical
reasons to discard the use of ranks: mine is that they are not
only supremely objective but that they force a
non-descendant--based organization to animals, in spite of their
descent, rather than to clarify it, and that they arose from a
typological perspective that is defunct and based on -- well,
this is not the list to discuss it -- the disbleif of evolution,
even though the persons involved may consider evolution a valid
or actual paradigm in nature.

<and therefore would have absolutely no interest in standardized
endings for such ranks.>

  In this case, my opinion is one of an issue of priority: these
taxa have names, there is little reason but for a computer
search program to emend names. If you want to have biologists
use standardized endings, have them do this to new groups they
want to name, not to change old ones.

<I believe that Lepidopterida will be much more acceptable than
typified new names like Papionida or Papioniformes (I've seen
both used).>

  -optera has been the standardized new ending for the original
inception of most insect groups, not a revised ending to be
applied. If one were to group beetles and ants into one group,
that ending would be an -optera, classified as an order, even
though each included taxon is also an order. Oh, it's equivalent
to another order, though they are not orders anymore. Where'd
they go?

<Likewise Primatiformes is preferable to a typified new name
like Hominiformes or whatever.>

  There was already a Primatiformes and a Primatomorpha.
Hominoidea, for man and his immediate ancestors including the
apes, needs no -iformes. This would suggest that, within Order
Primates, there is also an Order Hominiformes.

<Standardization is not an integral part of the system, but I
couldn't resist the opportunity to show that standardization
(without mandated typification) was a viable option.>

  let me make something clear, Ken, so that we are not at
loggerheads on the issue: I have no problem with
standardization. What I have a problem with is _retrograde_
standardization, as I feel this abbrogates priority and confuses
the research and use of names that Gilmore, Huene, Seeley, Kuhn,
etc. establish for reptiles in the last millenium and decades
before. There is establish literature that, in order to
standardize in _retrograde_ fashion, would be to neglect their
acheivements. This is why taxa carry the author's name. They did
not emend the name, so that while replacement names like
Rahonavis is used, the name is sealed to the original author. I
do understand that for most classic names the authors are no
longer around to rename them, should they be consulted and
agree, but this is not to step over their graves to alter their
names. The new name is to be credited to the new author, in this
sense, so that genus *Rahona* Forster et al., 1998a, is replaced
by *Rahonavis* Forster et al., 1998b, while the species retains
its 1998a date, and therefore authorship.

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices