Re: FutureNomenclature

From
Date
Reply-To
On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 14:44:00 +000,
  N. MacLeod writes:

>After monitoring the "code" discussion for the past week or so it seems
>clear that just about everyone has something they positively detest about
>the nomenclatural situation.  Perhaps even more importantly though, Rich
>Lane is right.  Not only does our ever changing nomenclatural system make
>life complicated for us, it doesn't make us look very professional to
>others.  Think of how you would feel if you walked into a business (e.g., a
>bookstore or an auto repair shop), asked a question of the clerks behind
>the counter and then had to listen to them argue about the name of the item
>you were interested in for the next hour or so.  Not the sort of situation
>that leaves customers with a sense of confidence.  But, the way forward is
>obviously not found by constructing long lists of the nomenclatural
>system's deficiencies.  Nothing is going to change overnight.
>Nevertheless, out here in the cyberspace we have an opportunity to
>collectively imagine what it might be like to start nomenclature all over
>again.  So, in a perfect world what would we want biotic nomenclature to do
>for us?  What types of information (or changes in information) should it
>respond to?  What should be its underlying organizational principle(s).  I
>assume everyone wants some sort of hierarchic system.  But how that system
>is structured depends on what sort of information you want to recover from
>it.  Should its primary function be to represent the current state of
>phylogenetic knowledge?  Or should it be designed only to capture the broad
>outlines of the phylogeny while, at the same time being used for verbal and
>written communication between people (as opposed to communication between
>machines that have absolutely no problem handling n-dimensional
>classification systems)?  Or perhaps we need multiple classification
>systems that capture the different aspects of our science (e.g.,
>phylogenetic, morphologic, ecologic)?  Let's get creative.  Who knows?  It
>might even be fun.
>
>Norm MacLeod
>
Dunno about you Norm, but when I go into an "auto repair shop" and ask for 
a part I usually have to define precisely what model and year of car I have 
including engine numbers and so on, define what is wrong with the car, and 
describe in some detail what the part I require looks like.  The chap 
behind the desk will often either give me a blank "does-not-compute" 
stare and go off to ask his supervisor; or give a sharp intake of breath 
and inform me "it's gonna cost ya, guv.".  He then has to look up the part 
in one of an extensive series of parts-manuals to find the code number 
for it, which he then has to enter into a computer which (usually) tells 
him the part he's looking for is out of stock.  This then requires the part 
to be ordered, involving much swiping of bar-codes and filling-in of 
forms.  When the part finally arrives it is almost invariably the wrong one 
and so the process is repeated ad nauseam.  This is the real world, where 
people make mistakes and where problems do not always have simple, clear-
cut solutions.  I would not blame the assistant behind the counter (nor 
the systems he uses) if my vague description of a complex mechanical 
component (eg. describing a throttle non-return valve for a 1985 Vauxhall 
Cavalier ((pre face-lift model)) with a 1.6 litre engine ((with a del'orto 
carburettor not a zenith)), as "that white plastic thing on the side of the 
carb.".  Likewise non-palaeontologists cannot grizzle if they present us 
with little mounds of rock-chips from a borehole in the middle of some god-
forsaken tract and ask us to read the entrails for them.  A little healthy 
dispute about how the prophesy should be divined is a sign of health 
and vigour in our science, not creeping senility.  

Multiple classification systems will only breed ever more jargon - of which 
we have enough already, you guys should instead look at ways of refining 
and improving existing, familiar systems.

   **********************************************************************
   * 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                                           *
   **********************************************************************