I found a message by Patrick Alexander in the archives of the Taxnomy forum. A link is provided for the original message below.



An excerpt is provided here:



"So... whether the common names come out being stable or not, it looks like this common standard name list ends up with the result that systematic changes are being made behind the scenes without a case for them being presented in an academic arena. As I'm not too familiar with ICZN, I'm wondering: do these changes have any validity within the code, or are they simply incorrect usages? Is there any (non-political) reason to accept them?"



As I said in other posts to this forum, Herndon G. Dowling had answered Patrick's question in a paper he published about a decade ago. Dowling writes:



'3) I find it more than passing strange that the taxonomic status of an animal is now determined by "majority vote" of "groups of herpetological specialists" (Collins 1990:1; 1992:43). It is more usual scientific practice for taxonomic changes to be made on the basis of the information provided in the publication that proposes them. Certainly, a group of "specialists" (or any other group sitting at a bar), or any author alone can determine how he/she will treat a taxon in their own publications (e.g., Lazell 1972). This, however, gives no additional validity to that usage; again it is the substantiation of this change by the provision of data, and the acceptance of this as adequate by other herpetologists, that count.'



Therefore taxonomic changes made as a result of the responses from a poll of several individuals are considered by Dowling not to be "usual scientific practice for taxonomic changes" and "more than passing strange." As Darling also points out, how the author of a list of standard common and current scientific names treat a particular taxon "gives no additional validity to that usage."



Since no data is provided to justify the change(s), other scientists cannot base their acceptance of these changes on an evaluation of the data. Therefore the decision to follow changes that are made by the author of a list of names can only be described as a blind or uninformed decision. That said, there is nothing in the code of the ICZN which prohibits evidence free taxonomic proposals or their blind acceptance. It is more usual scientistific practice, however, for scientists to base their acceptance or rejection of taxonomic proposals on the basis of an evaluation of the scientific evidence.



Reference

Dowling, H.G. 1993 A reply to Collins (l991 1992). Herpetol. Rev. 24(1):11-13.
Cnemidophorus inornatus and the standard common name debate

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]