mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by pjay on October 15, 2002 at 16:19:49:
In Reply to: Re: Taxonomy is a matter of evidence...most of the time posted by troy h on October 15, 2002 at 14:36:33:
i am in agreement with WW that strict adherance to lists that include whim-based name changes is not necessary. If you are familiar enough with the current taxonomy then you should have the ability to think critically about each name change, weigh the evidence, and form an opinion. Whether or not you agree with the currently accepted name, you should use it until you have enough evidence to contradict the findings in a published paper. You are welcome to have a public opinion as to the validity of the name, but when it comes time to publish, the current name should be applied. The practice of ignoring legitimate name changes is a widespread problem in herp taxonomy. The ICZN (not Collins et al or any other list maker) has complicated rules, so when a publication meets those standards the name should stick (at least for a little while).
:i don't have a problem with accepting a name change based on evidence that is solid, but i do have a problem with the idea put forth by the "list makers" that we are required to go with the most recently published name, for no other reason than because it is the most recently published name.
:in other words, just because Collins, et. al., think that some grad student's work is sufficient to warrant accepting a name change doesn't mean that the rest of us ought to go along if we think that the evidence doesn't warrant such a name change.