Taxacom: species name vs specific epithet

Sat Dec 31 16:50:48 CST 2022

One of the strengths and weaknesses of the Linnean system of binominal nomenclature is that it conflates classification with nomenclature (and to some degree, circumscription).  To clarify what I mean by this:

Nomenclature: the literal text string used to label or represent a semi-defined set of organisms that we aggregate as a "taxon".
Classification: the hierarchical arrangement of taxa as nested sets of other taxa (which, ultimately, means nested sets of organisms)
Circumscription: the actual nested set of explicitly or implicitly included organisms within a purported taxon.

Over the past two years, the late David Remsen, Nicolas Bailly and I have been brain-storming ways to model taxonomic information, and we realized through this effort both the blessing and the curse of how these three axes of biological information are conflated within the Linnean system.

The blessing is that a name like "Homo sapiens" is both a widely-recognized label (nomenclature) used to represent a well-understood circumscription (all humans on Earth, going back to some point in evolutionary history), and includes within it a classification (i.e., that the set of humans assigned the species epithet "sapiens" are in some way closely associated with organisms labeled with other species epithets combined with the genus Homo, such as "neanderthalensis").  Thus, with a simple, memorable text-string label, we can communicate both classification and circumscription at the same time.

The curse is that by conflating these things, we add much more complexity and, to some extent, ambiguity to our information exchange.  This is important because many people (myself included) see the assertion of sets of organisms comprising "taxa" and labelled with standardized names (indeed, the entire PURPOSE of taxonomy) as a mechanism to facilitate better communication among humans (biologists, policymakers, resource managers, enthusiasts, etc.). By overloading a single term (e.g., "Homo sapiens") with both explicit classification and implicit circumscription, the stability/persistence of the label is at the mercy of classifications and circumscriptions du jour.

In any case, while it is true that a binominal like "Homo sapiens" could function as a de-facto rank-less label to represent sets of organisms, this only works if the implied classification aspect (i.e., that organisms associated with the label "Homo sapiens" have any greater affinity with organisms associated with the label "Homo neanderthalensis", than they do with, say, organisms associated with the label "Pan troglodytes" -- or, for that matter, organisms associated with the label "Cocos nucifera") is abandoned.  Intuitively, I think most people would have a hard time abandoning this implied classification embedded within nomenclature, so while I certainly agree that one "could" do it that way, I'm not so sure they "should".

A little over 11 hours remaining for 2022 here in Hawaii, so I'm just getting my final rant of the year out of the way. Apologies (and Happy New Year) to all...

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 Hawai?i and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> via Taxacom
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 10:56 AM
> To: David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: species name vs specific epithet
> 
>  In the alternative reality where taxonomists (and people in general) have a
> modicum of commonsense, binomials can still be used for species names in a
> rankless taxonomy, just interpreted differently. A binomial, like Homo sapiens,
> for example, when then be interpreted as simply a two word identifier for the
> species. There would be no "changing the genus", except to eliminate
> homonymy. Closely related species could have different generic epithets and
> unrelated species could have the same. It would probably drive most
> taxonomists nuts, but, objectively, there is nothing wrong with it!
> Stephen
>     On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 04:27:04 am NZDT, David Campbell via
> Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
>  On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:21 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> > ...This is by no means the only example I can think of from papers
> > where numerous parasites from the same host are described in the same
> > paper, using the exact same spelling of a derivation of the host name
> > as the species epithet. How would you solve this in a way that is more
> > practical than just using the genus name?
> >
> 
> Similar phenomena are common in other situations, such as a monograph on
> the taxa from a particular locality that has multiple species receiving the same
> locality- or stratigraphy-based epithet.  MacNeil & Dockery (1984) used the
> specific epithet menthafontinalis for multiple species from the Mint Springs
> Formation.  Common Latin adjectives are used as specific epithets multiple times
> in many early publications (vulgaris Linnaeus 1758 is not very helpful, for
> example.)
> 
> An even more unhelpful proposal  to promote flexibility in taxonomic rank usage
> was to give names as Whateverhighertaxonomiccategoryisinviewatthemoment
> specificepithet.  E.g., Homo sapiens, Hominidae sapiens, Primates sapiens,
> Mammalia sapiens...  The number of homonyms that would create is appalling.
> 
> --
> 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 lists.ku.edu For list
> information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu The
> Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxaco
> m.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6506e3e
> 268884df404c708daeb716cc2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C
> 0%7C0%7C638081169635949719%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
> MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C300
> 0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3Mck9CIi2x876NK9dozXPv%2BZrMuqPZRNTGGjnfh6EP
> Q%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about
> 35 years, 1987-2022.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list
> information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu The
> Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6345d2cfeebf4b8cd69108daeb817a9e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638081238607325262%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZtRtZk%2FP5KLGVx8bFuCycJeEpSSONmWs7ipxt6GcxRQ%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about
> 35 years, 1987-2022.