 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by pjay on October 17, 2002 at 13:52:32:
In Reply to: but do YOU use Elaphe allegheniensis??? posted by troy h on October 17, 2002 at 11:24:14:
:but do you hold with pjay that we should, until further evidence appears, regard "elaphe obsoleta" as 4 species simply because burbink, et al have described them as such . . . or do you stick with your own conclusions based on their paper - that they haven't convinced you yet, and you're waiting on more data?
:see, that's my point - some would have you use any names published until someone counter publishes to refute the name change, regardless of whether or not the data really supports this name change.
In what context would you be using the names? If I am writing a paper as an ecologist, I may be informed by the differences that Burbink has found. If I am just writing a list of names, then it is a matter of choice. All taxonomic arrangements are inherently unstable at first because they rely on usage to become accepted. I don't beleive that every name must be used, but in the long run, work that is done in accordance with the rules of nomenclature must be accepted or rejected by a later reviewer. If you are going to complain about another researcher's data then you should be ready to put up some evidence of your own. Sixty years from now, someone will revise the genus, or better yet erect a new one for NA Elaphe and since noone shot down the name, it will include Newname allegheniensis.
:troy
