This week I was asked in a talk about the name change of Aedes aegypti. I think from the population point of view this is very complicated and can make it difficult for us to have the support of the population, so important in vector control programs.
The name changes are definitely annoying to the common people due to strict application of rules of the Code. On the other hand if this scientific rules are not followed, then there will a chaotic situation in future. The common man can refer to the organisms by their own means but in publications it is desirable to give the currently accepted names.
It seems to me that the 'chaotic situation' is being created by the taxonomists. We now live in a world where common names of plants and animals are more stable and reliable (and therefore sometimes more effective for communication) than are the scientific names. The remaining advantage of the scientific names (since their greater stability is now dead) is that they attempt to more accurately reflect phylogenetic reality. But even this is a mirage, since virtually all taxa probably arise paraphyletically (the old cladistic naming dilemma). Enforced monophyly depends on our ignorance (lost species, insensitive genetics), and hence, the constant renaming
Interestingly, the rest of the scientific world is beginning to rebel against this never-ending nomenclatural revision. The recent 'codified' name changes within the genus Acacia have been almost uniformly rejected by non-taxonomists. Fully ten years after the decision, the genus survives in the scientific literature, in a kind of grass roots rebellion.
It is not just the public that is confused. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of scientists have no clue what you are talking about when you use these new names. Even journals are beginning to recommend use of 'traditional' scientific names (Flora, for Acacia; and Journal of Medical Entomology, for Aedes).
What is the answer? The scientific community will need to decide. My own opinion is that we will need at least partly disconnect nomenclature from taxonomy, before all species are put in the Kingdom Archaea.
Meanwhile, if you must use a new name, at least report it in a way that does not lose most of your audience, like "Stegomyia (Aedes) aegypti".
Name changes are definitely annoying to non-taxomomists but common names are more stable and reliable in restricted areas only and not in the whole world.
If any one can propose a better idea for the stability of the scientific names, I believe the scientific community will accept that.
In the KEW sometimes you feel that there is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig chaos in choosing and determining the accepted names and the synonyms, even sometimes we can see basic changes in the sp, var, and subsp and they consider it as a synonym. I think we need more than one side to make decisions in determining these names.
It is problematic but I think this is tecnically necessary since there is logical arguments to propose that nomenclatural change. On the other hand, the use of popular names coud be problematic when there are species morphologically similar or cryptics, or even though when a species does not have a popular name. So, in the last case, will be necessary to propose a popular name? This does not have sense.
I was not actually suggesting using common names in scientific literature. I am suggesting that we not keep changing the scientific names every time someone comes up with another paraphyly dilemma (trust me, that chase will never end).
The debate and reflection are very good. I agree with Truman that this is an "endless path". I also believe that in that 5% (or less) known by the population is not viable the change. But no doubt, as quoted by Artem, the vast majority of species do not have a scientific name. Even so, we must be careful not to lose the stability of scientific names altogether.
I agree, the whole think does not make sense. What do you call Acacia tortilis when you arrive in Africa from Australia?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Vectorization