[tdwg-content] A question of Ranks [was: Re: tdwg-content Digest, Vol 20, Issue 17]

[Richard Pyle]

> 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