[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Don Morrison]

​On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> With an aim of making things as simple, generic and consistent as
> possible, carving out certain groups of methods, such as the quarks,
> for "non-classification classification" special treatment seems to
> me to be a step in the wrong direction.

Why? Serious question.

Lumping things together that practical ringers treat as unlike one another
seems to me to be the antithesis of simple, generic and consistent.

The following sure looks a lot more like Bristol to me than it does like
Stedman:

34.5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1,x

Yet the taxonomy sticks it into the same kingdom as Stedman, far, far
removed from the genus, family, order and phylum of Surprisus bristolis.
​​


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Taxonomists often confuse the invention of a name with the solution
of a problem."        -- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Mismeasure of Man_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160602/59480df2/attachment-0002.html>