424 Marc Ereshefsky
4.4 A Middle Ground
Defenders of the Linnaean hierarchy worry that the proposed alternative systems
are too radical [Forey, 2002; Brummitt, 2002]. They worry that the replacing the
Linnaean hierarchy would be overly disruptive to biological practice. For exam-
ple, suppose that the Linnaean ranks were replaced by positional numbers. The
Linnaean ranks are well entrenched both in and outside of biology. The ranks of
species and genera occur in text books, field guides, environmental legislation, and
elsewhere. Arguably, replacing the Linnaean ranks both in and outside of biology
would be too disruptive. A similar case is made against changing the names of
taxa, for example, replacing binomial names with uninomials. Switching binomi-
als to uninomials would require rewriting countless classifications, textbooks, and
field guides. Critics of non-Linnaean systems think that changing the names of
taxa would be too disruptive and impractical.
Still, the Linnaean hierarchy has its problems, as illustrated in Sections 4.1 and
4.2. Keeping the Linnaean hierarchy in place avoids disrupting biological practice,
but it also keeps in place the problems caused by the Linnaean hierarchy. Given
the pros and cons of replacing the Linnaean hierarchy, what should be done?
There is a middle ground between replacing the Linnaean hierarchy and keeping
the Linnaean hierarchy as it stands. We could keep the Linnaean ranks and names
as they are, but rid them of their Linnaean meaning.
When it comes to the names of taxa, we could keep the current taxon names
yet deny that such names having any classificatory meaning. A binomial name,
for example, would just be a name, it would no longer indicate the rank of a
taxon. Thus during taxonomic revision a taxon with a binomial name would keep
its name even if that taxon were reclassified as a more inclusive taxon. Similarly,
two biologists that disagreed on the rank of a taxon could continue to use its
binomial name because that name has no classificatory meaning — it is merely a
name. Keeping taxon names constant but eliminating any classificatory meaning
associated with such names avoids the problems facing the Linnaean rules while
at the same time keeping names stable.
A similar approach can be applied to the Linnaean ranks. We can keep the
Linnaean ranks and restrict the meaning of those ranks to being indicators of the
hierarchical relations among taxa within aparticularclassification. At the same
time, we would rid the Linnaean ranks of their metaphysical connotations: the
Linnaean ranks would not highlight any categories in nature; and, the assumption
that all taxa of the same rank, for example, all genera, share an ontological simi-
larity would be dropped. This approach avoids the problems associated with the
Linnaean ranks. For example, false comparisons among taxa of the same Linnaean
rank in biodiversity studies would be eliminated. At the same time, the Linnaean
ranks would still remain in place, so the disruption that would be caused by junk-
ing the Linnaean ranks is avoided. This approach to Linnaean nomenclature and
ranks charts a middle ground between critics and defenders of the Linnaean hi-
erarchy. It acknowledges and avoids the problems facing the Linnaean hierarchy