Re: Classification: A Definition

[Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>]

On 5/22/07, Graydon <oak@uniserve.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:53:56PM +0100, Mike Taylor scripsit:
> > Graydon writes:
> >  > > No, no, _alpha_ taxonomy, the naming of species and genera.
> >  > > Those we will never get rid of.
> >  >
> >  > I am uncertain of that.
> >  >
> >  > Specifically in paleontology, it's unclear that species level
> >  > resolution is possible at all, never mind generally, so the
> >  > question ought to be pretty much moot.
> >
> > Species or genus -- doesn't matter which, we need one of them.
>
> Why?
>
> We need a label that people can remember and say for a specimen or a
> group of specimens.  We don't need to attach a meaning beyond "this
> non-empty list of specimens" to the label, though.  I think it could be
> argued that in paleontology one *should not* go beyond that, because
> there isn't enough information to do it.

When you say a list, do you mean a literal list, or a potential one? I
mean, it may be possible and worthwhile to list every brachiosaur
specimen, perhaps every dinosaur one, but it certainly won't when we
get to fossil bivalves or diatoms.


--
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?