Posted by:
chrish
at Wed Jan 7 11:16:15 2004 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by chrish ]
Scientists are not God, even though they might like to think they are. The splitting of genera has been going on since Linnaeus, and I doubt there will ever be an end to it.
What changes is the scientific rationale behind the classification system. Linne's classification was set up to define the type of each species that was most "perfect". Modern classifications are set up to reflect evolutionary relationships between organisms. Therefore, as we learn more, we change our taxonomy to reflect the current understanding of the relationships. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge and tolerate ignorance within the system.
Whether an "expert" has an axe go grind or a name to make or, simply, a paper to write, they will keep on reclassifying ad nauseam.
I have, one more than one occasion, heard someone say that hobbyists use the classification that makes them the most money. They are only interested in splitting things so that they can sell their morph as a taxonomic identity which makes it more financially valuable to them. Its all about the money to the hobbyist. They don't really care about the relationships.
You are probably thinking this is an unfair generalization based on a skewed perception of a group of people that they know very little about. I agree. The same is true of your statement.
For the hobbyist's purpose, the old standby names serve quite
well,
Really? Do you still call watersnakes Natrix? Do you still use Lampropeltis doliata? Ophiobolus sayi? Which set of old "standby" names are are you referring to?
even when speaking of such declassified subspecies as E.o. williamsi or L.t. yumensis. At least we know what the heck we're talking about, and who's to say definitively that we're wrong? Names serve to classify, but hobbyists need some kind of stable nomenclature to identify.
Isn't that the purpose of common names? Can't you just call it an "blair's morph" gray-banded king, or do you need it to be called Lampropeltis alterna blairi? What about Lampropeltis californiae boylii? I bet in this case you are OK with just calling it a Banded Cal King.
Scientific names are NOT just labels. The binomial system is set up deliberately to reflect the phylogenetic relationships between the taxa. If not, what is the point of putting milksnakes and kingsnakes in the same genus?
If new evidence suggests that new world ratsnakes are related to old world ratsnakes do you think we should still maintain a nomenclatural system that implies that they are?
No one is telling you you can't still call all of them ratsnakes. Common names are good at maintaining those old relationships, even after data has shown that the relationship isn't there. I have no problem with that. I still call them Yuma Kings, I just don't use the subspecific name yumensis. I have no problem with someone using the name Gulf Hammock Ratsnake.
Hobbyists want names to be able to differentiate between recognizable morphs of animals. That is a perfectly legitimate purpose for a system of nomenclature. That is what our system of common names does. But that is not the function of our system of scientific nomenclature.
Maybe the two systems aren't compatible? I have no problem with a common name applying to many scientific taxa (Slimy Salamander) or representing a population which isn't taxonomically distinct under the scientific system (South Florida Kingsnake).
-----
Chris Harrison
...he was beginning to realize he was the creature of a god that appreciated the discomfort of his worshippers - W. Somerset Maugham
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Sort of... - chrish, Wed Jan 7 11:16:15 2004