Thank you Rich for saying what I want to say (well...almost) so much better than I can.
Thanks! But....(and I had a feeling this was coming...)
Perhaps not. But within Mammals, or within Beetles, or
within fishes,
they might have more useful meaning.
Actually, I disagree with Rich on this one. Ranks are useful to the extend that they are compatible (they go well) with any hierarchy, but they do not add any value to our knowledge, e.g. what we really know of a group and its descendants.
I can't tell you what a wonderful, reassuring, hope-inspiring pleasure it is that two people with such *profound* differences in how we view the classification of biodiversity (me, an ICZN Commissioner, fully committed to and embracing of the Linnean system of nomenclature, and who philosophically rejects the idea that "species" are somehow "special"; and Nico, an architect of the Phylocode, who rejects the value of ranks in nomenclature altogether, and embraces the notion that "species" are not only "special", but aren't even clades), can still be friends, colleagues on the same grant proposal, in full agreement on most of this thread (albeit for diametrically opposed reasons), and, perhaps most important of all, be completely civil in our often spirited (sometimes *very* spirited -- especially if err... "spirits" are involved) debates.
Jon Stewart would be proud of us both.
As for the utility of ranks -- well, I'm ready to agree to disagree, as long as we can both acknowledge that lots and lots of existing data "out there" are still classified (in a taxonomic sense) against the Linnaean nomenclatural system, for which dwc:taxonRank is a relevant (at least) attribute.
Aloha, Rich