Peter Kirk scripsit: > On 16/12/2003 09:41, Curtis Clark wrote: > > >A measure of comparison is the system of biological nomenclature, ... > >(not to mention the periodic and sometimes raucous conventions when > >the rules are modified). > > > Probably the secret of its success is the existence of such conventions.
*chuckle* The first use of "conventions" above means "meetings"; the second means "rules". Result: a non-meeting of the minds. > If biologists had insisted that names once assigned could not be changed > because of advances in knowledge, or even to correct errors, then surely > the system would have broken down centuries ago. In fact, Linnaean names are *not* changed for either of those reasons, nor for any other reason whatsoever: though we now know that Basilosaurus is a proto-whale and not any sort of reptile, Basilosaurus it will remain forever. The only thing that can happen in Linnaean nomenclature is the recognition that two names are synonymous. In that case, there is a question which shall be the preferred name, and normally it is the first name published, but exceptions sometimes occur. Thus when Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus were found to be synonyms, Apatosaurus was chosen as the preferred name because it was published first; however, this is not properly describable as "changing the name of Brontosaurus to 'Apatosaurus'". "Brontosaurus" is a perfectly good name and may still be used even though it is dispreferred. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.reutershealth.com graphs; you have a right to be here. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
