What you're describing would be determination, not classification/nomenclature. Classifying specimens means grouping them by similarity, not answering a list of questions to get to what it is, then working out the name of each group according to rules of nomenclature.
The way they talk about the project makes me think that they see taxonomy as fixed once things have been classified in some way: they aim at classifying everything, as if this would be the end of taxonomy (they barely mention specimens and specimen description information, and their 1994 *still draft* report says ?it does mean that a universally accepted name (e.g.,a Latin binomial) is the means of sharing information about that organism among countries?, and worse ?Even the application of a Latin binomial (?describing ? the species) is a useful conjecture about the traits of that species?). I guess their intent is therefore to collect names and determinations.
But a repository of species names is nearly pointless in itself. What does that mean to have a name? What does it represent? Classifications are built from characteristics you see in specimens. These characteristics can be phenotype-level characteristics or molecular/DNA-level characteristics. There is no rule to select the characteristics of interest to you. It is the result of grouping specimens together because they exhibit similarities. Because there is no rule for choosing these characteristics, two taxonomists may choose a different set for any kinds of reason (one knows more, one has access to techniques others don?t, he collected more specimens, whatever), and will therefore build different classifications. Imagine you?re trying to classify your Lego bricks. If you decide that colour is important, you certainly won?t create the same groupings as if you chose shape, or even size.
[From now on I?ll talk about plant taxonomy because it?s the domain in which I work] Once you have created your groups according to your chosen characteristics, you need to name them. That?s where names enter the equation. Unlike classification, in plant taxonomy, nomenclature is regulated: you have to apply the International Code of Botanical Taxonomy (ICBN). To simplify things far too much, the ICBN says that you must consider type specimens, and name groups in which they appear with the names the type specimens are the types of. Type specimens are specimens that have been elected as representatives of a name. When you end up with many type specimens in a group, you must choose the oldest one. If you don?t have any, you need to elect a new one and give it a name.
That?s where it becomes confusing. Because you name groups using types, you don?t really control how things are named. You don?t just put a name on a specimen because you feel like it. A consequence of that is that if you group specimens A and B together and B is a type specimen, the group containing A and B will receive the name for which B is a type (let?s call it b). Now imagine that you use a different set of characteristics to build your groups (imagine shape instead of colour), you might group A with C. If C is a type specimen, then the group containing A and C will be called whatever C was called (let?s call it c). Now A, a physical specimen you can touch, has two names, and depending on whom you trust, you will call it differently: b or c. Conversely, a single name can refer to very distinct sets of specimens because of the type specimen game. (and this gets even messier if you consider multinomial group names such as species, variety, forma, etc)
Imagine this at the scale of taxonomy (at least plant taxonomy) in general and you have an idea of the real problem. This is why a repository of all species names, although of practical value (you don?t have to search for these names), is pointless for understanding biodiversity. If the All Species people want to record accurate information, they need to record not only the names, but all their meanings (the specimens that compose them). Now that?s another scale to the problem.
Why is it important to record everything a name might mean? Take molecular people. They have no interest in taxonomy. For them it?s all been done and it?s all clear. Imagine they extract a substance from specimen A or its full DNA sequence. What is A exactly? Is it a b, whose group has some properties you know and may be of interest to you, or is it a c, a group that you don?t anything about because you don?t care about taxonomy therefore you don?t know things may be classified in different ways? Don?t you think it could be important if a competitor patented a drug extracted from species c, which happens to be exactly the one you?re working on without knowing it?
Slashdot Mirror
What you're describing would be determination, not classification/nomenclature. Classifying specimens means grouping them by similarity, not answering a list of questions to get to what it is, then working out the name of each group according to rules of nomenclature.
The way they talk about the project makes me think that they see taxonomy as fixed once things have been classified in some way: they aim at classifying everything, as if this would be the end of taxonomy (they barely mention specimens and specimen description information, and their 1994 *still draft* report says ?it does mean that a universally accepted name (e.g.,a Latin binomial) is the means of sharing information about that organism among countries?, and worse ?Even the application of a Latin binomial (?describing ? the species) is a useful conjecture about the traits of that species?). I guess their intent is therefore to collect names and determinations.
But a repository of species names is nearly pointless in itself. What does that mean to have a name? What does it represent? Classifications are built from characteristics you see in specimens. These characteristics can be phenotype-level characteristics or molecular/DNA-level characteristics. There is no rule to select the characteristics of interest to you. It is the result of grouping specimens together because they exhibit similarities. Because there is no rule for choosing these characteristics, two taxonomists may choose a different set for any kinds of reason (one knows more, one has access to techniques others don?t, he collected more specimens, whatever), and will therefore build different classifications. Imagine you?re trying to classify your Lego bricks. If you decide that colour is important, you certainly won?t create the same groupings as if you chose shape, or even size.
[From now on I?ll talk about plant taxonomy because it?s the domain in which I work] Once you have created your groups according to your chosen characteristics, you need to name them. That?s where names enter the equation. Unlike classification, in plant taxonomy, nomenclature is regulated: you have to apply the International Code of Botanical Taxonomy (ICBN). To simplify things far too much, the ICBN says that you must consider type specimens, and name groups in which they appear with the names the type specimens are the types of. Type specimens are specimens that have been elected as representatives of a name. When you end up with many type specimens in a group, you must choose the oldest one. If you don?t have any, you need to elect a new one and give it a name.
That?s where it becomes confusing. Because you name groups using types, you don?t really control how things are named. You don?t just put a name on a specimen because you feel like it. A consequence of that is that if you group specimens A and B together and B is a type specimen, the group containing A and B will receive the name for which B is a type (let?s call it b). Now imagine that you use a different set of characteristics to build your groups (imagine shape instead of colour), you might group A with C. If C is a type specimen, then the group containing A and C will be called whatever C was called (let?s call it c). Now A, a physical specimen you can touch, has two names, and depending on whom you trust, you will call it differently: b or c. Conversely, a single name can refer to very distinct sets of specimens because of the type specimen game. (and this gets even messier if you consider multinomial group names such as species, variety, forma, etc)
Imagine this at the scale of taxonomy (at least plant taxonomy) in general and you have an idea of the real problem. This is why a repository of all species names, although of practical value (you don?t have to search for these names), is pointless for understanding biodiversity. If the All Species people want to record accurate information, they need to record not only the names, but all their meanings (the specimens that compose them). Now that?s another scale to the problem.
Why is it important to record everything a name might mean? Take molecular people. They have no interest in taxonomy. For them it?s all been done and it?s all clear. Imagine they extract a substance from specimen A or its full DNA sequence. What is A exactly? Is it a b, whose group has some properties you know and may be of interest to you, or is it a c, a group that you don?t anything about because you don?t care about taxonomy therefore you don?t know things may be classified in different ways? Don?t you think it could be important if a competitor patented a drug extracted from species c, which happens to be exactly the one you?re working on without knowing it?