>  > Taxonomy is all about putting names to organisms which reflect ther
>>  accurate relationshiups. It absolutely rightly has nothing to do with
>>  endangeredness, amateurs' ideas of esthetics or the convenience of
>>  collectors. Therefore when new information comes along which
>>  indicates that an older name is the correct one to use, or that a
>>  species actually belongs elsewhere than its present placement, we
>>  must go along... IF the move is objective (and it sure ain't
>>  necessarily so).
>
>Dear Andrew, I believe you are missing my point here. Regarding species
>level names, your opinion simply is NOT true. 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! Though to a slight
degree I agree with you on this.

>  you're either a lumper, or a splitter, and that's fine.

In fact you can be anywhere in between the extremes, as I am. Some
would call me a lumper, others a splitter. I don't try to please
others, because that's noit science. I attempt to be as objective as
I can regarding genera and subgenera. I LIKE subgenera, as they are a
good way of indicating differences whilst still showing close
supraspecific relationships. Subspecies on the other hand are
commonly used by amateurs but are frowned on by the vast (and
growing) majority of taxonomists, and I don't use them either.

I agree that genera/subgenera are rather subjective, and try to use
consistent similarities and differences to place species. Some
families are a nightmare eg Epitoniidae, where there are numerous
"genera" or subgenera which just do not hold water...

>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.

>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. 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. If amateurs (among which I
number) don't like this, that is their problem.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<[log in to unmask]>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut