INTRODUCTIONMuch is made of the fact that systematists have beenusing a Linnaean hierarchy for the last two and half cen-turies. Since our ideas of nature have changed dramati-cally over that period, it is suggested that how we goabout naming organisms should change as well (e.g.,Pennisi, 2001). Linnaeus believed that the species he11Stevens Why do we name organisms?51 February 2002: 11–26Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the pastPeter F. StevensDepartment of Biology, University of Missouri at St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri63121, and Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166, U.S.A. E-mail:[email protected] naming systems of Linnaeus and Bentham in particular are examined to clarify the relationships betweennaming and ideas of relationships. Linnaean binomials were adopted largely for practical reasons. Furthermore,Linnaeus proposed his names in the context of system, putting organisms in groups of 10. This allowedbotanists of moderate capabilities to know at least the genera. Although binomials are names of taxa of the twolowest levels of a rank hierarchy, much of Linnaeus’ work does not fit easily in the currently widely acceptedview of Linnaeus as a hard-bitten essentialist. Neither Lamarck nor the later Bentham believed in a rank hier-archy, although to name organisms both used what is here called a flagged hierarchy: name terminations indi-cating only a set of inclusion relationships, not ranks of nature implied by a rank hierarchy. Bentham was clearthat the adoption of a flagged hierarchy with groups of a particular size in the Genera plantarumwas to facil-itate botanists’ understanding of the system as a whole. Systematists like Bentham and Linnaeus managedinformation and presented classification systems simultaneously. I conclude that the lower level of Linnaeus’hierarchy is a special case of the noun + adjective combination that pervade folk classifications in particularand human language in general. Linking essentialism and “Linnaean” nomenclature is at best a red herring,thus few nineteenth-century botanists believed in a fully-developed rank hierarchy. Naming hierarchies aremostly such that at each level members belong to only one group, and this is at a higher level; most such hier-archies are fairly shallow. Historically, uninomials have seemed more attractive when generic limits were influx, but suboptimal when relationships were more stable. Naming systems in general incorporate a substan-tial element of convention, emphasizing particular numbers of groups and groups of particular size; this facil-itates comprehension and communication. Similar conventions will be needed whatever naming system isused.KEYWORDS:Bentham, convention, flagged hierarchy, informal hierarchy, Linnaeus, nomenclature, phyloge-ny, rank hierarchy.There are also Idols arising from the dealings or associations of men with one anoth-er, which I call idols of the Marketplace. For speech is the means of association amongmen, and in consequence, a wrong and inappropriate application of words obstructsthe mind to a remarkable extent (Bacon).But unfortunately a “unique & stable numbering system” probably won’t ever happenas the community will not support such. ...it isn’t numbers that is the requirement for“unique & stable”. It is the community acceptance of a system to make anything“unique & stable”. Zoological Nomenclature is an International Standa rd whichshould give you “unique & stable” identifier (keys, etc.), but it fails because peoplewill not follow it nor allow its modification to better provide the “unique & stable”,etc. Set up a registration system like the Bacteria people did, and you get “unique”names. “Stable” fails because of taxonom ic progress and classification paradigms(Christian Thompson, taxacom@ usobi.org).described and named had fixed essences, did he not? Hisideas, and his names, surely are in conflict with evolu-tion-based naming systems of the twenty-first century,and so his names should go. To help clarify the issuesinvolved, I examine some aspects of the relationshipbetween names, classifications, and nature. I ask twoquestions. What were those who named groups trying todo? What in consequence might we learn about the rolenaming plays in systematics? These questions seemnaïve, and their answers self-evident, yet I will show thatneither is as simple as it seems. I focus on vascularplants, but any principles we can derive will be general-ly applicable. However, it is no purpose of this article tocriticise or defend in detail either proposals for aPhyloCode or the so-called Linnaean hierarchy.I look very briefly at some 18thand 19thcenturyclassifications, focusing mainly on Linnaeus and GeorgeBentham. I shall suggest that the details of the hierarchythat Linnaeus used owe much to his belief that almost allplants had been discovered and to his desire that the sys-tem as a whole should be easy to grasp. The oft-repeatedclaims that Linnaeus was an essentialist, and that essen-tialistic thought pervades his work, turn out to be ques-tionable. When we look at other 18thand 19thcenturysystematists, and at George Bentham in particular, wefind hierarchies being used by systematists whose under-standing of nature was very different from that ofLinnaeus. Again, concerns with essences are not at allobvious, and the desire that the system as a whole beeasy to grasp shapes its structure.My conclusions are two-fold. Firstly, even if onethinks that Linnaeus was a essentialist, this is surely tan-gential to the general issue of the use of hierarchicalnaming systems in biology. Hierarchical naming systemspervade our whole language and thought, and from thispoint of view, the Linnaean hierarchy is simply one suchsystem. Secondly, there is a recurring tension betweenthe need to communicate and the apparent implicationsof a “natural” classification of whatever stripe for thenaming system used. The naming systems I discuss—undeniably successful—were conceived as conventionsin which emphasis was placed on the structure of thehierarchy, on particular levels in it, and on taxa of a par-ticular
View Full Document
Unlocking...