[tdwg-content] Taxon and Name

[Nico Franz]

Thanks, Rich:

    I just HAVE to answer this one thing... (the rest seems either not 
too important and/or we're largely in agreement).

On 11/2/2010 9:10 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
>> on the following grounds. The basic model of
>> reference in play is (crudely):  uses of human language<==>
>> some sort of mapping/reference<==>   entities in nature.
> I guess I need to understand what you mean by "entities".  Is a taxon an
> entity in nature (existinting independantly of a human's definition of it),
> in your view?  If so, we may be stuck on first principles, at which point
> the safest thing to do (for all parties involved) is to agree to disagree.
>
> I'm also struggling to understand the scope of "uses of human language".
> Are we talking just taxon name-labels?  Or do you also include the way we
> refer to diagnostic characters and such?
>
The whole point of the taxon concept approach - done right in my (not 
really all that humble) opinion - is that the question about reality, 
versus construct, versus some mix thereof, is not really relevant. Wrong 
question, so to speak. A solid taxonomic concept approach should be able 
to accommodate taxonomic practice as it is actually being done.

    If all taxonomists thought that their perceptions of taxa (including 
feature diagnoses) map to something "objectively" real (independently of 
the particularities of human cognitive abilities and semantic 
conventions => "the causal structure of the world") - fine, then the a 
well executed taxon concept approach shouldn't have a problem with that.

    If, on the other hand, taxonomists thought of their products merely 
as a matter of quasi-reliable and convenient vocabularies that somehow 
reflect something about the human-external world but could well be very 
different and still serve their purpose ("arbitrary constructs" - though 
it's never that arbitrary once you start down a given path and test for 
reliability) - then just the same that should be accommodated within a 
taxon concept approach.

    So then, the reason why mentions of PhyloCode-like definitions of 
clades vis-a-vis concept taxonomy tend to give me light allergies, is 
because phylogenetic taxonomy actually does on occasion make fairly 
strong claims about what nature is like, and how good taxonomic practice 
should reflect this ("use definition type X, not Y"). In that sense, I 
regard concept taxonomy as a full-fledged alternative and competitor to 
PhyloCode-like taxonomy. Both, I think, try to improve upon the 
semantics of Linnaean taxonomy and ultimately help users. But the 
PhyloCode, if I am allowed the strong oversimplification, tries to do so 
by getting definitions of taxa right once and for all. Concept taxonomy, 
on the other hand, is exclusively interested in comparing and 
reconciling different taxonomic "products" (concepts, classifications) 
published at different times and likely under different systematic 
paradigms. The issue is not at all whether we got the concepts "right", 
i.e. whether they closely map to natural taxa. Instead, the goal is to 
properly archive the sequence of views (so that ontological reasoning 
may come into play). Normative claims about practice are restricted to 
the practice of archiving only.

    I think taxonomic publications are real (enough), and I think 
occurrences of intersubjective human understanding and misunderstanding 
are real (enough). That's what concept taxonomy should concentrate on 
representing. The rest is up to the producers and users.

Respectfully,

Nico