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

Re: Princeton Field Guide



 On 01.10.2010 22:35 CEST, Jaime Headden wrote:

 David Marjanovic wrote:

 <Whatever you want it to be.>

 And this tells me that effective scientific discourse cannot occur on
 the definition of the word "genus." Thanks, David, for proving what I
 wrote earlier. This also tells me that I _can_ have 70 species of
 *Varanus* (or more, many more) and it would be _right_, because (gosh
 darnit) I'm worth it, and my CV will be so _HUGE_.

Absolutely, yes. I'm just saying it's majorly inconvenient -- subjectively inconvenient -- to have a genus with 70 species when only two ranks between genus and species are allowed.

I'll reply to your previous message later (Sunday evening at the earliest) after looking up the ICZN article that explicitly forbids all ranks between genus and species except subgenus and "group of species".

 You see, the issue is cascading: A genus, a family, a species, are
 all ranks. And in their pretense, systematists will at least adhere
 to one of these as a recognition of true biological or taxonomic
 utility (mostly the species, but sometimes the genus) and enforce
 this through nomenclature, which must be then followed. So I cannot
 really pretend that some taxa do not exist because my concept
 structure is different from theirs. Note how the quoted premise does
 not benefit science?

I don't understand this. Please reword or explain it.