Paleontological Nomenclature

From
Date
Reply-To
Item Subject: Text_1
     This is in response to Jere Lipp's response of 12/23 to my 
     message on 12/22.  I will not comment on everything I would like 
     to as Jere's knack for dialogue would make it a very long 
     response.
     
     I will not accuse my friend Jere of being wrong, as he did with 
     me, I'll just say that he is not all right.  Please note that in 
     his note that followed this one he basically came around to what 
     I have been trying to say (i.e., we need to explore alternatives 
     in nomenclature). Below are comments on excerpts from Jere's 
     note.
     
     RE:  Our problem is two fold:  1. ......., 2. Paleontologists are 
     always bemoaning their situation.  Poor us, we have too many 
     names, too many people proposing names, not enough jobs, not 
     enough money, and no respect.  Would you respect someone who has 
     such negative things to say about themselves, their work and 
     their field.  .....
     
     I regard Paleonet as being a family discussion.  Things that we 
     discuss here should never be carried to the outside.  Those 
     nonpaleontologists accessing Paleonet are eavesdropping and 
     should treat the information as such.  We should be able to bring 
     up the negatives so that we don't go off venting in the wrong 
     places.  Of course, it can't be all negative, we should see some 
     positives in the dialogue or else we have a pretty acrimonious 
     family. I am part of one of the largest paleontological groups in 
     the industry and perhaps in North America.  You don't get to our 
     position by being negative!!
     
     RE:  I suggest that since these scientists do not know Linnean 
     nomenclature, don't use it.
     
     Yes, you and Mr. Holtz would have us further fractionate our 
     science by having industry develop its own nomenclature relavant 
     to the outside world.  I reject this idea and it requires 
     developing another solution to accomodate the inadequacies of the 
     Code. Most real recent, practical, value-added advances in the 
     science have come out of industry, and you are asking us to do it 
     again!?
     
     RE:  The Code has nothing to do with this stuff.
     
     The Code has everything to do with this stuff.  It provides us 
     with rules, but no traffic cop--to pick up on your analogy.  
     Don't rules have to be enforceable?  Everytime we have a 
     taxonomic accident, there are no taxonomic police there to make 
     the offender clean up the wreckage.  Instead we are left with the 
     wreckage there as sort of a monument to chaos and around it we 
     build bridges and bypasses.  Everytime we travel that route we 
     must look at that wreckage and take the detours and bridges to 
     get around it, unnecessarily complicating our travel path and 
     delaying our arrival.  What's worse is: Wreckages beget 
     wreckages.
     
     Re:  To stabilize nomenclature is to stop progress.
     
     Surely you do not mean this.  As we enter the 21st century, we 
     must stabilize our datasets.  If we are constantly sanitizing our 
     databases because Joe Blow decides to bust up a perfectly good 
     concept into 10 fragmentary ideas, then our focus is on 
     maintaining not applying.  We can't lick ourselves forever.
     
     Re:  No. It (the Code) is the accepted set of rules which 
     zoologists and botanists use. 
     
     Grnated, the Code is referred to as rules, not recommendations.  
     But rules without some sort of enforceability, in my opinion, are 
     no more than recommendations.
     
     I am afraid that this connection is going to crash on me as it 
     already has once.  Please see Part 2, coming soon.           
     
     Rich Lane
     Amoco
     hrlane@amoco.com