"Prevailing usage"

[Spies Martin]

Dear list members

It does not seem productive to get personal in discussions like this,
neither in a subtle nor a direct way. That given, I feel I should reply
to some points in Chris Thompson's contribution, so that nobody else
jumps to a categorization of my thoughts without first reading exactly
what I am saying.
This will show that Chris' position and mine are not so opposite
that a defense of his was called for, much less one in the somewhat
condescending and derisive tone set by his introduction:

>> SORRY, Martin, those writing the new Code strongly disagreed
with your ideal world. <<

Is it really naive, inappropriate idealism to argue against the needless

abandoning of essentials of the scientific method? More importantly,
my entire message - from top to bottom - advocates the exact same
procedure Chris (in his "FINALLY" paragraph) is also giving as
exemplary for quality catalogs: that we critically examine each
taxonomic datum (name, type, catalog, Code Article) individually,
and treat it according to its scientific merit (applying, e.g., the
two criteria I proposed in my first message).

Two examples:

>> So, "prevailing usage" does apply to "incorrect or variant
spelling". << (Chris Thompson)

If you read the first paragraph of my first message (quoted by Chris!)
you will see that I am not saying "prevailing usage" doesn't apply to
spelling problems, only not to all of them.

>> ... one must also be careful about categorizing work by its title. <<

There is no such careless categorization in my first message. After all,

with that I would have disqualified my own catalog which I referred to
as a (not only good) example. I am simply warning against the uncritical

copying of data from catalogs (or any publication) and yes, also against

Chris' earlier statement (in his reply to Dr. Lorenz' first listserver
question) that it is entirely sufficient to consult a (any) catalog to
determine the (prevailing) usage and therefore correct meaning of
a taxonomic name.

There is also nothing in my message attacking the zoological Code
or its authors in principle. In fact, in my own taxonomic work (on
Diptera Chironomidae) I have been trying to encourage more use
of the Code (as the only such tool available) even against some
resistance.
What I am trying to do is to point to severe practical and theoretical
problems as I see them with the one individual element of the Code,
"prevailing usage" as it is presently defined (or rather not defined),
applied in some (not all) Articles of ICZN 4 (1999), and apparently
designed to move up in the ranks of Code principles (see Chris'
interpretations).

But let me repeat: I see no disagreement in principle with Chris'
method for arriving at solid, stable, scientific results as he outlines
it for the production of >>serious monographic work<<.
I just find ample reason to disagree - not least for reasons that are
not idealistic but rather very practical - with the current
"prevailing usage" concept.

Sincerely,

--
Martin Spies
Schraemelstr. 151
D-81247 Muenchen
Germany

Tel. (ZSM): +49 89 8107-153
Fax (ZSM): +49 89 8107-300

E-mail: spies at zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: spies.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 157 bytes
Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Spies Martin
Url : http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/attachments/20010821/867cac43/attachment.vcf