首页> 外文期刊>Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature >The Taxon Filter, a novel mechanism designed to facilitate the relationship between taxonomy and nomenclature, vis-a-vis the utility of the Code's Article 81 (the Commission's plenary power)
【24h】

The Taxon Filter, a novel mechanism designed to facilitate the relationship between taxonomy and nomenclature, vis-a-vis the utility of the Code's Article 81 (the Commission's plenary power)

机译:分类法过滤器是一种旨在促进分类法和命名法之间关系的新颖机制,相对于《守则》第81条(委员会的全体权力)的效用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999; hereafter the Code) has one fundamental aim: 'to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct. All its provisions and recommendations are subservient to those ends and none restricts the freedom of taxonomic thought or actions.' (Preamble of the 4th edition of the Code; ICZN, 1999). To be clear: in its pursuit of this aim the Code is not an evidence-based scientific system, let alone a taxonomic method. It is, I would suggest, an accounting system akin to those used in finance, defined for this purpose as 'a system of collection, storage, and processing of [taxonomic] data that is used by decision makers' (Atabaki & Khanmohammad, 2013, p. 41). Such a system is by design based on general principles, receiving input from those engaged in taxonomic science. However, even if the science of taxonomy is distinct from the nonscientific realm of nomenclature, the two intersect every time information from the former is passed to the latter. In order to ensure that the system of nomenclature (e.g. Dubois, 2005) is perpetually meaningful to the scientific endeavour, logic dictates that its input from taxonomy must be evidence-based, and follow established scientific methodology (e.g. Popper, 1972; Simon et al., 2012) or 'best practice' (e.g. Dubois, 2005; Kaiser et al., 2013). Unfortunately, at its important intersection with science, the Code does not regulate the specifics for how taxonomic input should be generated, received, admitted, or incorporated into nomenclature.
机译:《国际动物学名称法典》(ICZN,1999;以下简称《法典》)的一个基本目标是:“促进动物科学名称的稳定性和普遍性,并确保每个分类单元的名称都是唯一而独特的。它的所有规定和建议都服从这些目的,并且没有任何限制任何分类思想或行动的自由。 (《守则》第4版序言; ICZN,1999年)。需要明确的是:《守则》在追求这一目标时不是基于证据的科学系统,更不用说分类方法了。我建议,这是一个类似于财务系统的会计系统,为此被定义为“决策者使用的[分类]数据的收集,存储和处理系统”(Atabaki和Khanmohammad,2013年) ,第41页)。这样的系统是根据一般原则设计的,从从事分类学的人员那里得到输入。但是,即使分类学与命名学的非科学领域截然不同,但每当前者的信息传递给后者时,两者就会相交。为了确保命名系统(例如Dubois,2005年)对科学工作具有永久意义,逻辑规定,分类法的输入必须基于证据,并遵循既定的科学方法(例如Popper,1972年; Simon等人) (2012年)或“最佳做法”(例如Dubois,2005年; Kaiser等人,2013年)。不幸的是,《守则》在与科学的重要交汇处,并未规范应如何产生,接收,接受或将分类学输入纳入术语的细节。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号