|
At this point after all these years I think we've worked our way down to the basic philosophical dispute between myself on one hand and yourself and Tim Williams on the other. Basically, you and Tim are nomenclatural anarchists. You said yourself earlier
that you don't value nomenclature as a field of interest and instead see it as a mere tool to make discussing the animals easier, and Tim said a few days ago that he didn't like indeterminate type species because they potentially don't represent a biological
reality, not because of any nomenclatural difficulty that could occur. The ICZN and the law are actually extremely similar in what kind of thing that they are, it's just that the law has organizations which can choose to directly punish those who break it.
And just like the ICZN, you don't have to follow the law, and in fact it's constantly being broken and going unpunished due to multiple factors (lack of resources, corruption, lack of surveillance, etc.). And just like the ICZN, the law is not "correct" or
"true", as both are regularly revised.
Similarly, both nomenclature and law are subjects which lead to analyses and disputes, in technical journals and forums like the DML. But in cases like this, a nomenclatural anarchist like yourself can't actually move the conversation because you're not working
within the accepted framework. You and Tim are like someone entering a legal debate as to whether act X is legal by saying 'the law is just people and papers and my gut tells me act X is the ethical choice." Or an atheist entering a theological debate and
saying "God's not real, so none of your arguments for or against have any weight behind them." In both cases the person may be correct, but they're unhelpful to the legal analyst or the theologian. "What do the rules and principles of the ICZN have to say
about Diplodocus?" "Nobody has to follow the rules and I have different principles." ...
Mickey Mortimer
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:05 PM
To: Jaime Headden <jaimeheadden@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>; DML <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status
Well, that is a matter of opinion. Or, rather, of what axioms you accept.
For those who think the ICZN's word is law, you are right. For those who actually work on diplodocids, not so much.
-- Mike.
> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.
"Admits" is the wrong word here; it implies that the agency that
governs types that everyone agrees to follow is *wrong* on a matter 0f
*fact*, when, in fact, they are not. Just because PEOPLE use CM 84 as
their reference specimen doesn't mean it is now the type specimen. The
appeal to the ICZN to change the type *failed*. It doesn't mean
they're unwilling to admit a point of fact; rather, it's the PEOPLE
who refuse, as this quoted sentence demonstrates.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 4:25 AM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bottom line is this:
> * The ICZN says Diplodocus longus is the type species (and so YPM 1920 is the type specimen).
> * Actual sauropod workers use CM 84 as the type specimen for all practical purposes.
>
> That means that reality and the Commission differ. There are only three possible outcomes:
> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.
> 2. Sauropod workers stop referring to CM 84 and start comparing putative Diplodocus material to YPM 1920.
> 3. We continue as we are today.
>
> We know from the rejection of the petition that #1 is not going to happen. I can tell you for myself, and for the sauropod workers that I have collaborated with, that #2 is not going to happen. That leaves #3: the issue will continue to sit there — either
ignored (which I think is just fine) or occasionally bubbling up to no effect (as in the present thread).
>
> I have made my peace with the fact that all the extant malacologists on the Commission want to think YPM 1920 defines what the name Diplodocus means. I no longer feel the need to persuade them they're wrong. But they most certainly have not persuaded me that
they are right, and I am just going to go on my merry way.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 04:46, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But that's just saying things should be how you feel they should be, without appealing to any specific consequence. You and Tschopp need to be able to say that "If we allow a type species to be
>> > indeterminate within its genus, then if we have problem X it would be more difficult to solve." I've yet to hear a valid problem X for the ICZN, Phylocode or any other logical construct. Just vague
>> > "insecurities and confusion" or in your case it being "bad."
>>
>>
>> I don't see a species as simply a construct that is invented to
>> satisfy ICZN rules. I see a species as a real biological entity. The
>> ICZN may govern the rules of nomenclature, but it doesn't decide
>> biology.
>>
>> Allowing a type species to be indeterminate within its genus is just
>> jiggery-pokery to keep the genus going. The indeterminate species
>> conforms to the ICZN Code, but it doesn't actually denote a real
>> species in the biological sense. Taxonomically, retaining a nomen
>> dubium as a type species gives the misleading impression that it's a
>> separate species in its own right. In reality, it's just a
>> bureaucratic placeholder. Scientific nomenclature should be about
>> naming real species - not exploiting the arcane rules of the Code to
>> prop up indeterminate species.
--
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff:
http://qilong.wordpress.com/
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)
|