| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Regarding the current rage over eliminating the ICZN and the Linnaean
system, I feel that I have a unique position among the combatants to weigh
in with my "two cents" worth. As an undergrad student toiling my way through
college with the ultimate goal of a graduate degree in geology/paleontology,
I feel that any possible changes to the current taxonomic system to be
especially relavent to me and my future profession (and current one as
non-professional paleontologist). So put on your rocket launchers and get
ready :)
I'll stick out my neck to venture my observations/opinions.
It is my most humble opinion that the current heiarchical system
is NOT broke, nor in need of repair. The problem I have encountered however,
seems to be the result of the obfuscation of the system, principally by
overzealous splitting of taxonomic ranks now being used. The Linnaean System
is the most basic "language" of biology by which all professionals,
teachers, students, and non-professionals can communicate with. This is the
framework from which ALL taxonomic rank and nomenclature should be derived. I
do recognize that there is a need to revise the heiarchy to reflect our
20th/21st century understanding of past and present life.
Some suggestions include;
1) Abolishing supra, sub, infra, micro and all other extrataxonomic
descriptors.
2) To revise the current number of ranks from 7 to possibly 10 or so. These ne
w ranks would reflect possible or putative assignments of supraspecific
taxons within and/or among other ranks (cf. reason #1), yet still preserving
their original rank assignments. This way paraphyletic or even polyphyletic
taxa could be represented. For example,
The Reptile-Aves-Dinosaur realtion could be better understood by erecting
a new taxon such as SAUR-AVES (or ORNITHOSAURIA) and assigning it to a NEW
rank above Class. Graphically this might look like,
RANK TAXON NAME
Kingdom- Animalia
Phylum--Cordata
"New Rank Here"---"SAUR-AVES" or "ORNITHOSAURIA"
Class(es) Reptillia---Class Dinosauria--- Class Aves
| |
|
(all other reptiles) | |
|
|
Order(s) Saurischia |
Family(ies) -----------------
Genus Deinononchus Archaeopteryx
Species antirrhopus
|
|
|
|
Birds
Ornithischia
Family Ankylosauria
Genus Priconodon
Species crassus
The vertical lines represent relationships with the next higher or lower
RANK whereas the horizontal lines, at all levels, represent possible, or
putative paraphyly and/or polyphyly as nescessary.
Please forgive any inaccuracies since the object here is to provide a
possible example for demonstrative purposes ONLY! Other possible new ranks
might be dactyly, podiality (obligate or facultative quadruped), theropoda
(carnosauria, herbisauria), and even oviparity may possibly be used!--- all
supraspecific ranks.
In summary then, the heiarchy would resemble the current system but include
new ranks and diagrammatically represent current inter- and intra-taxon
affinities while preserving the nomenclatural system.
I realize that there is considerable doubt about assigning supraspecific
names to extinct taxa, based on the paucity of taphonomic, physiological and
metabolic data however, I strongly feel that the current framework has stood
the test of time. My suggestions then, avoid both over-splitting and
over-lumping taxa and convey the maximum amount of information that all walks
of life can communicate in and relate to.
This was off the top of my head so please ignore any gross inaccuracies or
unintended offenses :)
You may fire when ready!
Regards,
Thomas R. Lipka
Paleontological/Geological
Studies
Tompaleo@aol.com
(410) 426-1880
USA
Partial index: