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

RE: terminology

  In this case, then, it is science bowing to art. Not following the ICZN in 
this case would be a case of rejecting them; should they then choose to follow 
some provisions of the Code while ignoring others, the whole point of the Code 
(any of it) will be lost, and Chaos becomes the practitioner's friend. Imagine 
if the prevailing usage, despite correction and appeal of a limited few, 
supported *Brontosaurus* over *Apatosaurus*, including over the protest of Jack 
McIntosh at the time this issue was most recently _public_? What if Bakker had 
his way and we all used the latter name in all papers? The ICZN would bow to 
prevailing usage, and I suspect it will do so here because the scientists at 
hand refuse to consider the stability of nomenclature to be its own goal.

  We can see this with the australopithecine-hominine groups of hominids, where 
a select few can enter such a sustained ideological refusal to acknowledge 
taxonomic usage that it will be disruptive to the ability to communicate about 
the groups in question. And I'm not even talking about religion, I'm talking 
paleoanthropologists rejecting each others' taxonomies for the sake of their 


Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:49:29 +0000
> From: mike@indexdata.com
> To: keesey@gmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: terminology
> On 21 January 2011 16:45, T. Michael Keesey  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.  wrote:
> >>
> >> And let us remember: the Code serves Science, Science doesn't serve the 
> >> Code.
> >
> > Tell that to Drosophila melanogaster! ;)
> >
> > (Drosophila hasn't been sunk, but D. melanogaster probably belongs to
> > Sophophora instead. A petition to make D. melanogaster the type was
> > denied.)
> Sure. But from what I hear, kinds of people who write papers about
> fruit flies are going right on calling it D. melanogaster anyway.
> Which just goes to prove that when the Code _doesn't_ serve science,
> science just ignores it and gets on with its job. Hence the title of
> my (2009) paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
> "Electronic publication of nomenclatural acts is inevitable, and will
> be accepted by the taxonomic community with or without the endorsement
> of the Code".
> -- Mike.