Biological Nom Enclature, Classification and the Ethnozoological Specieme

INTRODUCTION The objectives of biological nomenclature on the one hand, and constructing and maintaining a hierarchial system of classification on the other, are related but distinct. In his classic work Systerna Naturae, Linnaeus (1766) adopted a binomial nomenclature, whereby each animal was given a specific and a generic name. Although zoologists now use a modem language for the description of the taxon, Latinisation of specific and generic names (as used by Linnaeus) is adopted universally. To promote universality and aid stability of nomenclature, various regulatory codes have been proposed throughout the past century. There is now a single code (The International Code o f Zoological Nomenclature, Third Edition, adopted by the 20th General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences, and published in February 1985). That Code, like its predecessors, addresses problems such as those of homonymy and synonymy, and provides the procedural mechanics for resolving them. Nomenclature is a utilitarian device: we must communicate. To the uninitiated it is perhaps a surprise to discover that the practice of zoological nomenclature is volatile and generates more heat than a nuclear reactor. Classification in biology creates a hierarchical system of units of decreasing magnitude ranging from the Animal Kingdom as a whole through to a recognisable component of a portion of a single species. Linnaeus used what would today be considered a simplistic scheme involving only five units within the Kingdom: Class, Order, Genus, species and variety. Subsequently the number of units increased as the need for them arose and the complexity and diversity of the Kingdom was revealed. It is apparent that there is considerable divergence o f use o f classification, such that zoologists working on fishes and reptiles may have totally different perceptions of a Family unit. Similarly at a level below a genus there is no uniformity in the nomenclature of “sub-generic” units. The problems of classification have been compounded over the past 25 years by the introduction of biological and molecular techniques demonstrating that biological and genetic divergence is not always accompanied by morphological change. Thus they may demonstrate that two genetically distinct populations meriting recognition at a species level may be identical in their appearance. Clearly the hierarchial classification has proved inadequate to accommodate the subtleties of various degrees of divergence between and within populations, and also inadequate to express various degrees of affinity between species within a genus. This comment is equally valid in anthropology in the study of communities and their history, and their assumed origins and relationships. Here I address some of the problems that exist. I have in part been deliberately provocative, in the hope that the contribution will generate meaningful discussion. It is against that background that I put in perspective the implications of one of Ralph Bulmer’s findings in ethnozoological nomenclature.