1. Nomenclature vs Taxonomy – why do the nomenclatural Codes aim to keep nomenclature and taxonomy relatively independent? Do you agree with this aim?

Comments

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/07e5156a6b0245a90f8d26913e7db5a3.jpg?d=http%3A//iczn.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by rebet on

The aim of nomenclature is to provide a standardized method
of establishing scientific names. The rules and guidelines in the code ensure
one species is given one name that is in a recognizable format and can be
accessed by all. It is not a form of science, but more similar to a ‘legal’ system.
Taxonomy, on the other hand, is a science that can be tested. Hypotheses on the
inclusiveness of a taxon can change, based on character definition and
selection, method of analyses and the species concept view of the taxonomist.
The Code does not affect this; it is there to provide the name on which a taxon
is based upon but allow taxonomy to move with current opinion in science. I
agree with the separation of terms as nomenclature can be a complicated process
with its long history to consider and the occurrence of synonyms, homonyms,
principle of priority etc. The mentality for dealing with this in a strictly
uniform way is different to that of taxonomy which can have a multi-faceted
approach and therefore to avoid confusion in how to deal with these two areas,
they should be handled independently.

Scratchpads developed and conceived by (alphabetical): Ed Baker, Katherine Bouton Alice Heaton Dimitris Koureas, Laurence Livermore, Dave Roberts, Simon Rycroft, Ben Scott, Vince Smith