From: jcowan@reutershealth.com
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 16:05:51 EST
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> On 16/12/2003 09:41, Curtis Clark wrote:
>
> >A measure of comparison is the system of biological nomenclature, ...
> >(not to mention the periodic and sometimes raucous conventions when
> >the rules are modified).
> >
> Probably the secret of its success is the existence of such conventions.
*chuckle*
The first use of "conventions" above means "meetings"; the second means
"rules". Result: a non-meeting of the minds.
> If biologists had insisted that names once assigned could not be changed
> because of advances in knowledge, or even to correct errors, then surely
> the system would have broken down centuries ago.
In fact, Linnaean names are *not* changed for either of those reasons,
nor for any other reason whatsoever: though we now know that Basilosaurus
is a proto-whale and not any sort of reptile, Basilosaurus it will
remain forever.
The only thing that can happen in Linnaean nomenclature is the recognition
that two names are synonymous. In that case, there is a question which
shall be the preferred name, and normally it is the first name published,
but exceptions sometimes occur. Thus when Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus
were found to be synonyms, Apatosaurus was chosen as the preferred
name because it was published first; however, this is not properly
describable as "changing the name of Brontosaurus to 'Apatosaurus'".
"Brontosaurus" is a perfectly good name and may still be used even though
it is dispreferred.
-- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.reutershealth.com graphs; you have a right to be here. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath jcowan@reutershealth.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 17:22:23 EST