The New Order?

My copy of the new ‘checklist’ arrived in today’s post. I’ve only had a quick flick through but was pleased to see they decided to show the new and old (B&F) numbers next to each other. Even so, it’s going to be very strange asking someone if they’ve seen a 66.001 yet!

Seasons Greetings one and all :-)

This entry was posted in Reference. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The New Order?

  1. Raymond Watson says:

    Yes, some new ordering and a few new names. I see we have an Uncertain octogenarian!

  2. Tony Prichard says:

    Seems to be a very good piece of work from what I’ve seen so far. I’m not yet convinced about the new numbering scheme though.

  3. Raymond Watson says:

    I thought that they were going to adopt the European system. However thinking about it it is sensible to have our own the only betterment would be a global numbering system for all to adopt. The new numbering is totally equitable with digital data handling. It would need new Lepidoptera families to disrupt it.

    • Tony Prichard says:

      I’d not heard of the European numbering scheme being adopted – only the taxonomic ordering and some names changes.

      I remain to be convinced about the new numbering scheme. It’s not just new families that may cause problems – what about merging of families, or moving a species from one family to another. In such cases would we change the family part of the number? If so then we end up with two numbers having been used for the same species. I see little benefit of the family number part other than to introduce a decimal point into the number which makes sorting work for additions and it makes it clear that it’s not a B&F number. However, the former could just as easily be achieved by adding the decimal after the species number (eg 2001.1 for a new species to add between 2001 and 2002)

      At the heart of the problem is the fact that the number is being used for two different roles – one to uniquely identify the species, the other to indicate taxonomic ordering. The first you hope is constant and the second you expect to change – too frequently it seems. You won’t satisfy both requirements with just a simple number.

      Apart from this minor grumble it’s a very impressive piece of work.

  4. Matthew Deans says:

    I picked the new checklist up and within five minutes had discovered three errors! To start with, they can’t even spell ‘checklist’ on the back cover! Then Bawdsey is mis-spelt with reference to my Cymolomia hartigiana. And according to the new checklist the Conformist has never occurred in Scotland! First impressions, not impressed.

Comments are closed.