| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Despite being a latecomer to this debate, I cannot resist the temptation to add my #0.0s.5d worth (in old money). Whatever camp we may choose to follow, we should not, as other correspondants have intimated, overlook the fact that we are attempting to apply artificial constructs to subject matter that is vastly complex in nature. Whether we use "classical" taxonomic nomenclature or statistical notation we are attempting to impose a simple and stable hierarchical ordering system onto a group of entities (living or formerly living organisms) that are complex, ever-changing, and in which the perceived hierarchy is (or was) in a constant state of flux in response to constantly fluctuating environmental conditions and biological interactions. As a palaeontologist I am, of course, always aware that the knowledge we have of individual fossil organisms can never be remotely complete; but as a curator and field scientist I am still more aware that our knowledge of the nature and extent of the fossil record is enormously more incomplete. However it strikes me that already in our infant science some specialists are proceeding down avenues of thought and research that, however laudable, will with the passing of years be seen to be hopelessly premature. This debate for or against the scrapping of established taxonomic nomenclature is I think a symptom of this: it is not a "black and white" issue of right or wrong - palaeontologists or biologists whose backgrounds, education and abilities are best suited to mathematical approaches to their chosen field will obviously evolve numeric systems to express their ideas; similarly, those who take a more organic approach and who have a classical grounding will naturally continue to favour the so-called "analogue" mode of expression. I suspect that in time we will find, like the meteorologists, that the more data we have, the harder it becomes to make that data fit simple formulae - culminating perhaps in a taxonomical "chaos theory". In the meantime what we have is an internationally recognised and regulated system of notation - a kind of lanuage we (almost) all speak: any taxonomist worth his salt recognises that taxonomical nomenclature is merely a means to express an abstract idea and to place it into a classification that allows that concept to be accessed with relative ease. This is not unakin to the way (most of us) organise our filing cabinets or our computer directories: by subject matter. Were we to try to organise our filing systems along statistical lines we might order our correspondance by the number of words in each item or the mean appearance of the letter T in a document - a fine system, with its uses, but one which would make for example, finding how many loans are overdue this month, rather difficult. Suprageneric classification is undoubtedly unstable and inconsistant, but this is only partly because the system is at fault. It is much more because our knowledge of living and fossil organisms is still very far from complete, consequently classification is constantly being revised and flaws in existing concepts constantly appearing. As our knowledge increases, systems for handling and expressing that knowledge will mature and the time for scrapping existing methods of classification will be apparent to all, without any need for hysterical calls for book-burning. As for hierarchical systems expressing natural phyletic clades - what makes you all so sure there are clades in nature ? ********************************************************************** * Paul Jeffery, [Curator, non-cephalopod fossil mollusca] * * Room PA205, Department of Palaeontology, * * The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. * * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * * Telephone: +44 (0)71 938 8793 Fax: +44 (0)71 938 9277 * * INTERNET: paj@nhm.ac.uk * **********************************************************************
Partial index: