Principios de Taxonomia

44j 2 Why is there a Species Problem?
are comparable in rank, there was an effort made to replace the Linnaean names with
the phylocode (Cantino et al., 1999). Although this would have been an important
step towards consistency and unambiguousness in taxonomy, this reform in nomenclature
has not yet had the chance to become widely accepted. The only reason for this
failure is that the reform is impractical.
It is telling that recent reforms in taxonomy have all sought compromises. The
barcoders must always pronounce that they do not ignore other kinds of taxonomies
and that these taxonomies are valuable supplementations. The phylocoders have
realized that their new taxonomic names will not be accepted, and they seek a
compromise by retaining the old names and explaining them using the new names.
This situation seems to show nothing else than that taxonomy is a science that is
inherently incompatible with consistent ways of thinking.
Perhaps it was a mistake from the beginning to include phylogenetic branching
and the concept of reproductive coherence in the practice of taxonomy. If taxonomy
restricted itself to what it originally was, which was a method of sorting according to
sensibly selected principles, then most of the discrepancies that taxonomy has
encountered since Darwin would disappear; however, taxonomists would also have
to consistently commit themselves to this method. The goal of taxonomy would then
need to be pragmatism, and pragmatism in most cases means a classification
according to diagnosable differences in traits.
To end taxonomy s fate as a never-ending story and an eternal point of contention,
it seems that separating the goals of pragmatism-oriented taxonomy and causal
science is unavoidable. Remarkably, this idea has already been suggested by Ernst
Mayr, a persistent advocate of a nomologically oriented taxonomy, who recommended
the complete severing of the species as a nomological unit from the routine
business of a taxonomist, who is forced to classify organisms into groups (cited in
Mallet, 1995). Subsequent authors have again and again arrived at the same
conclusion (Heywood, 1998; Atran, 1999; Schmitt, 2004). Even Ghiselin (2002)
agrees with the proposal of giving different names to classes of species for the
purpose of operational handling and the species as it exists in reality.
The natural and the artificial species concepts both have a right to exist and will
both be used side-by-side. Many disagreements could be avoided if this dualism of the
species concept was admitted and if the pragmatist would admit that his species
units are artificial products. The unmasking of this difference explains the substantial
amount of heated emotions concealed behind the species problem. The species
problem is about a mutual lack of comprehension, mutually different esteems by
other disciplines of natural sciences and varying successes in the fight for appreciation
as a high-ranking science. There are reasons why taxonomy faces a fight in
competition with other branches of the natural sciences. The range of taxonomy
extends from folk biology ( scientia amabilis ) that is close to science in our
everyday lives to a natural science that is based on reproducible and falsifiable
experimental results, in agreement with the philosopher Karl Popper.