My views on the following :
> I followed with interest the discussion about Taxonomy and wondered
> about the mechanism of changing Taxonomy on any level (as well as
> decicing about new species).
>
> Upon whom is vested the competence to decide about these changes? and
> what would cause one body of opinion to accept the decision of another
> body to change?
Anyone. Anyone at all. Others will accept their revisions if they feel that
the writer has produced sufficient evidence to back them. If they are
talking from that part of their anatomy least suited to the purpose then
their views will not be adopted by others - but they cannot (and must not)
be officially suppressed.
> I think that we should agreed upon a panel of competent, and scientific
> persons to revise any proposal for change ( and perhaps accept new
> species) and this on a universal basis.
Yes, they had one of those in Italy before the Renaissance. It charged
Galileo and others with heresy for suggesting the world was not the centre
of the universe, and tried to have them killed. The Spanish Inquisition
also concerned itself with people who challenged the accepted view of
Nature, with similarly lively results.
Many bewildered collectors have joined this string with complaints that
just when they had labelled all their specimens, someone comes along and
changes the genera again. 'What genus is this species in now?' they lament.
The answer is - whatever you personally think best. There is no ready-made
guide, and there are no rules apart from the ICZN. If I think Collisella
should be divided into 29 subgenera based on the colour of the animals'
tentacle tips, then assuming I follow the rules in naming them, my new
genera are as available as any from any other author. Whether you choose to
adopt my genera in labelling your specimens depends entirely on your
opinion of my work. You may meet a number of people who say I'm wrong, and
your respect for them and their work may lead you to adopt their opinion as
your own, but no number of detractors makes my 29 genera unavailable - nor
should it. Science is for everyone. Ultimately, history judges; few of
Perry's genera are still generally adopted, but one or two are - he was
right some of the time, like most of us. Rafinesque was palpably off his
nut, but many of his family group names are with us today. On the other
hand, some degree-festooned professors of recent years have published large
numbers of new taxa which have almost immediately disappeared from
literature except as synonyms. It all depends on how well the homework has
been done before the article is written. Very few collectors bother to read
the original description of genera and come to their own conclusions about
which one to use for a particular species, but this is really what one
ought to do.
Every now and again, a revision in depth of a family appears. Species are
moved into different genera, new genera are created, and sometimes new
subfamilies and families too. The sad fact is that for many people, the
thickness of the book, the number of pictures and the density of the text
are all the criteria they will use in deciding whether or not to adopt the
proposed arrangement. The author may have no firmer grasp on reality than
Constantine Rafinesque, though, and it is only by reading and understanding
the work that one can make an informed decision as to which genera to use
in classifying one's own collection.
|
