[Taxacom] New name on the hominin family tree branch...

[David Campbell]

That is an important point missed in many proposals for revised
nomenclature.  Proposals to "enhance" species names to pinpoint an exact
species concept through a format like *Homo sapiens297hfsd843.fj3ff83* might
make computers happy, but they do not produce enhanced communication among
humans - even if someone works with the concepts enough to remember exactly
what *Homo sapiens297hfsd843.fj3ff83* is, proofreading becomes untenable -
how do you know that they didn't actually mean *Homo
sapiens297hfsd843.fj3ff88* ?  Likewise, efforts focusing on making names
convey other information besides "what taxon are we talking about" tend to
produce greater confusion about what taxon is meant (e.g., redefining taxa
phylogenetically in a way that changes the taxon concept).

On the other hand, "I believe it will help facilitate communication" alone
does not satisfy the requirement to include characters that purport to
differentiate it.  As taxonomists, we need to also make the case that a new
name enhances communication by not being redundant relative to existing
names.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 2:27 PM Richard Pyle via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Would a statement along the lines of, "I name this as a new species
> because I believe doing so will help facilitate communication among
> humans", meet the editorial norm?  I sure hope so, because ultimately
> that's the de-facto definition for every new species name, regardless of
> what the authors assert.
>
> (Tongue only partially inserted into cheek as I duck for cover...)
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Associate Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
110 S Main St, #7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017