Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:12:27 EST From: PTemple001@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3536$foo@default> Subject: Jan's CP Database (Adding comments on names)
In Charles Clarke's excellent comments of Jan's also excellent database,
Charles included the following:
> You could do the same with *your* taxonomic interpretations,
>particularly those which are at variance with others which have been
>formally published. By doing this, you could (for example - and this is
>certainly not a debate I wish to get sidetracked into again!) continue to
>recognise N. fallax as being distinct from N. stenophylla and Jebb & Cheek
>could continue not to, without there being any direct, unsubstantiated
>implication on the database that the alternative views are wrong (even if
>you or others think they are).
Emphatically not trying to draw Charles into further debate ...
...I hope I can comment without causing friction with anyone.
I believe the scientific rules are clear. A plant bears a name according to
the most recent legitimate publication describing it. Thus, I do not believe
Jan should ever list a plant name according to his own belief or
interpretation. This is a difficult point to make as clearly the CP database
is Jan's, maintained by his efforts alone and due much credit. However, the
database, if it is to be for public access, should surely list the current
published name in accordance with international naming conventions.
I am more than happy to hear Jan's views for or against names and those of
others with different opinions, and these could appear in comment fields
within the dattbase.
There is surely scope to argue which plants should actually appear in Jan's
database. I believe Jan is right to define his list with the opening
explanation and others (such as Charles) are equallty right to request and
suggest changes that make the CP database definition less ambiguous.
But science is science. In any scientific list representing plant names they
must be what is formally accepted according to current scientific naming
conventions. Any other name would surely require the traditional Jan response
of "Invalid"! To list an alternative name or opinion causes the whole list to
be devalued as once opinion is included, thereafter no-one can be sure whether
any entry is "valid" or a personal opinion.
I do not mean to (and obviously can not) tell Jan what he should do with any
private list he maintains. But by making the list a publicly available tool I
feel it must conform to the international standards of naming conventions
which is almost always does.
It is suggested Jan could use alternative names and add comments in a comment
field to explain why and point at published names (and I believe I fully
understand why this suggestion is made). But this would be wrong according to
naming conventions and would therefore be a source of misinformation.
Jan's list is a marvellous item, excellently maintained. I would hate to see
it removed from public access and there are few items within it that give rise
to any potential criticism. I hope no-one, especially Jan, minds the odd
comment meant to increase the importance, use and popularity of this list.
Pure or unconstructive criticism is not intended.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:38 PST