Dear Gerry,
Thank you for clarifying , I am grateful for your explanation which clarifies your meaning and I think that it is a pity that you stop a discussion that could lead somewhere. It is, as Martin writes, useful to be forced to think things over. We usually have a many beliefs and some knowledge that we have not made clear - even to ourselves - and you have forced some of these (mine) to the surface.
I have a slight handicap that I share with many. I write English fairly gramatically correct and fairly well spelt (Thank you Mr Gates) This does not mean that we always write exactly what we think we do. The English reader, however, is unaware of this. It is of course the other way round too. If you say that you did not intend AH argument I gratefully accept that and all is well on my side.
It would be very far from me to believe that scientific truth is depending upon personal beliefs. (Strangely enough quantum physics seem to be based on the belief that properties that we have not yet measured do not exist a belief that seems to make truths depend upon the individual. I agree with Einstein - not with Bohr) I have used the word tool in the everyday meaning. A name is a handle to something and a handle is a tool. One could argue that a hypothesis sometimes could be used as a tool but this is not my meaning here. I see naming systems as tools and the tool in itself is unable to be true or false. A tool is also not a scientific belief. The application of the name can of course be wrong or right.
I do not know what beliefs Carl von Linné held in 1753. At least officially he held the belief that species were classes created by the Lord and they were permanent and constant. The idea that all members of a genus would have a common ancestor would be heresy in the theological meaning of the word. What he wanted to create was order in chaos and I think he did that. The idea that species are permanent, always separate entities is not tenable and I give you right in that. Already Darwin and to some extent Mendel defeated that idea. The tool - the naming system - is, however, in my view tenable. In a majority of cases it works well for all who use it. The tool depends upon the users. The users have to assign borders between entities that should be given one name and those that should be given another. These borders are man-made just as the names themselves are man-made. If the borders reflect an underlying difference so much the better. However there are underlying differences all the way down to the individual specimen and the choice will be man-made. Einstein once said. "God does not play dice" I would add, 'He does not give names either' (Adam did that
)
I would like to paraphrase Professor Parkinson and say that a perfect system is a dead system. Sometimes we get a mess. This mess is unavoidable. We all make mistakes. Sometimes because of stupidity, sometimes because of irrational bias, In the case of naming, the main reason is lack of information. This lack of information is typical for the naming of a new plant. If it does not even have a name we do not know much else either.
No naming system can avoid this problem. Thus when Gawler named a, for him, new Lily L. tigrinum he was unaware that Thunberg had named it L. lancifolium in the previous century. When Franchet named one lily L. lankongense and another L. duchatreii he was unaware that intermediate forms exist. Gawler's mistake is rectified by the very obvious rule that the oldest name is the right one. Franchet's mistake is trickier. The present idea seems to be that L. lankongense is but a geographical variation of L. duchatreii. My point is that I can still use the name L. lankongense Franch if the plant in question fits Franchets original description.
Fortunately for the taxonomist, the majority of plants do not overlap. However some do and quite often I find myself on the side of the lumpers. I do not believe that all Trilliums are different entities to give one example. On the other hand I do not believe that it is correct to call Kinugasa japonica Paris japonica. It is much too different.
If we assume that naming systems
must closely reflect the "true" relationships we run into trouble. It is not so that a proto-Lilium suddenly splits into a number of different species. The changes go one step at a time. L hansonii seems closer to L martagon than to L lancifolium but is L. medeloides closer to L. hansonii than to L. martagon? We can find out but we end up with the situation that we have to put a border somewhere. This border can never be a "natural" border. When the system works well there are no overlaps because the intermediate plants are extinct.
Fortunately I am not in the botanical "business" thus I can do as I please. Since I, by stooping down and looking the flower in the face, immediately can see the difference between a Chionodoxa and a Scilla I will go on calling it Chionodoxa thereby conforming with the virtual flora published by the Swedish Museum of Natural Nistory and practically all litterature, catalogues and labels in botanical gardens. If I call it Scilla, I only cause confusion.
With the best regards
Göte.
PS
Names are like other words. They are defined in dictioneries by people using other words as tools of definition. Sometimes there are synonyms, sometimes there are homonyms. In spite of the difficulties we do not change to Esperanto or Assembler.
.
