>From: David Wright <dwright at u.washington.edu>
>Date: Tuesday, February 06, 1996 11:31AM

>This is one of the problems with categories. What if we simply named the
>branches and didn't assign them to pigeonholes (categories -- order,
>family, genus, etc.)? If what we originally thought to be a single
>lineage (A) is later recognized as two, we don't need to "split" A into
>two taxa of that each have the *rank* that A once had; rather A still
>exists as a taxon, but now it has two subtaxa (B and C) included within it.
>
>> [MH]
>> So I think it's safe to say that there will always be lumping a
>> splitting, regardless of how we choose to name what we see.
>
>Not in a system that doesn't pigeonhole taxa into categories (family,
>genus, etc.). There may be subdivision, but that's not the same as
>splitting, because the newly recognized taxa don't assume the
>*categorical rank* of the original (there is none); -- they are simply
>nested within the original.

David - I agree with some of your points. Kingdom, Phylum, Class,
Order, Family, Genus, and Species are unsatisfactory, as is
demonstrated by the introduction of suborder, subfamily, etc. Loons
and Grebes are in different orders, whereas all of the perching birds
are in a single order. Are loons and grebes really more different from
each other than swallows are from finches or ravens or shrikes? Are
the ranks supposed to indicate the evolutionary time of splitting, or
the genetic difference? They can't successfully convey both.
Furthermore, there will always be tinkering with the placement and
relationship of the limbs of this tree.

That said, I still disagree with you about being able to name branches
in a meaningful way without needing lumping and splitting.

Consider the case of the Western Flycatcher, where birders thought
there was one species, but the birds thought otherwise. If we don't
change the way we refer to these birds, we miss a point that is
apparently very important to the birds themselves.

In the case of Townsends and Hermit Warblers, (although nothing is
certain yet), we may have thought there were two species, but the birds
thought otherwise. If so, what use is it to name the two end points?
Doing so excludes those individuals who are inbetween. You also need
to have a name for the combined species. Most things you might say
about Townsends Warblers would also apply to Hermits (and more
certainly to inbetween birds), so why not use the collective name
instead of implying that you are speaking strictly about those who look
like "Townsends".

The root problem is that the notion of species often does not really
work. Thus, we are using a broken ruler to measure things. However
tackling this one would end listing as we know it - and I'm not sure
there is the policial will to do that : )

== Michael Hobbs
== Redmond, WA
== mikeho at microsoft.com