[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Taxa nomy?
Contrary to popular misconception (by some), the Linnaean system is live and
doing well. Advocates for the Phylo-Code have yet to have the terminology
accepted by the international zoological community. The major problem is that
the Code is primarily (not exclusively) advocated by some vertebrate
paleontologists because of the unusual nature (bones, partial skeletons, etc.)
of the specimens. This is NOT an issue with the majority of the zoological
community which deal with living organisms. There has been a trend in recent
years towards a more middle of the road approach whereby the strengths of the
Linnaean system and of the Phylo-Code are being used by vertebrate
paleontologists. One very big misconception I repeatedly note on the DML is
that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature deals with categories
higher than family. Not so. It clearly spells out that it limits its self to
Family, Genus and Species. These three categories do not conflict with
Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
Dept. of Earth Sciences
Denver Museum of Natural History
2001 Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80205
>>> <email@example.com> 09/Mar/04 >>>
I'm still not quite clear on this - supposedly, the concept of Linnaean
taxonomy is out and cladistics is in... but I keep seeing 'genus' and
'species' bandied about, as well as 'taxa'. And nobody actually says
'class' anymore, but the distinctions 'mammal', 'reptile' 'amphibian'
and 'bird' are used with gay abandon (only now, 'bird' is a sub...
thingy of 'reptile'). So, what really gives?