Subject: Re: Triplofusus?

 Regarding species
> >level names stability prevails. That's
> >what the new 1999 ICZN code, more than ever, is about.
> >Regarding genus level names, these remain strictly a matter of personal
> >opinion,
>
> It certainly is not if you ask the taxonomists!

Which taxonomists? The fact that they all tend to disagree with eachother
and often contradict themselves over time surely proves my point.
>
>
> >However,
> >there are a few species (at least in malacology) that have an importance
in
> >scientific literature well beyond that of taxonomic malacology alone.
Think
> >of Dreissena polymorpha, Achatina fulica, Strombus gigas, Helix pomatia,
> >Partula spp. etc.
> >These are the kind of names that ought to be preserved too. In each case,
a
> >change in specific epithet would be dreadful, but a transfer to another
> >genus would be equally problematic.
>
> That's not at all what taxonomy is about. It is about real
> relationships. It doesn't matter one bit how economically important
> or whatever a species might be; if it eventually is found that it
> doesn't belong in the genus it's traditionally been placed in, then
> it MUST be moved. This is objective.

How can you "find out" that a species does not belong to a genus? Give me
the objective definition of a genus. Better: make it public. You'll be a
hero of Linnean proportions.
Truth is, we are not talking taxonomy here, but taxonomic nomenclature. The
aim of that is to let scientists all over the world know which taxon we're
talking about and have been talking about for nearly 250 years. If someone
"discovers", say through DNA comparison, that Strombus gigas is not
Strombus, but a Rhinoceros on holiday masquerading as a conch, then let the
ICZN decide what to do. But my favorite solution is: call it Strombus gigas.
And if at the same time S. pugilis (the type of the genus) appears to be a
bullfinch, then, if you insist, change the genus name of that much less
important species into something else.

>
> >That's why I think general usage (thus:
> >stability) should prevail in such cases as well.
> >Fortunately there is an elegant way out of this controversy: if one is of
> >the opinion that, for instance,  S. gigas should be Eustrombus g. or
> >Tricornis g., then one may use Eustrombus or Tricornis as a subgenus;
> >Strombus (Eustrombus) gigas. Then you have the best of both worlds.
>
> Science is not a matter of compromise; it is not democratic, it is
> not a voting matter.

IT IS! Read the ICZN 1999 code (or for that matter the 1985 or 1961 code),
chapter 17.

If "Strombus" gigas does not fit in Strombus but
> rather in Tricornis or whatever, and Tricornis is not a subgenus of
> Strombus, then "S" gigas must be moved.

Alternatively, "Tricornis or whatever" could be moved. And that would make
sense, and that is what I'd support.


Marien
www.mollus.nl