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

[Richard Pyle]

> 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.

Fair point. That damned Art. 13.1.1 always asserts its existence!  

But the part of my tongue that was not in my cheek was alluding to the only species concept definition that has (or probably ever will) withstand the test of time: 

"A species is what a community of taxonomists says it is."

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> David Campbell via Taxacom
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:52 AM
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New name on the hominin family tree branch...
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.