No abstract

The origins of genetics are to be found in Gregor Mendel's memoir on plant hybridization (1865). However, the word 'genetics' was only coined in 1906, to designate the new science of heredity. Founded upon the Mendelian method for analyzing the products of crosses, this science is distinguished by its explicit purpose of being a general 'science of heredity', and by the introduction of totally new biological concepts (in particular those of gene, genotype, and phenotype). In the 1910s, Mendelian genetics fused with the chromosomal theory of inheritance, giving rise to what is still called 'classical genetics'. Within this framework, the gene is simultaneously a unit of function and transmission, a unit of recombination, and of mutation. Until the early 1950s, these concepts of the gene coincided. But when DNA was found to be the material basis of inheritance, this congruence dissolved. Then began the venture of molecular biology, which has never stopped revealing the complexity of the way in which hereditary material functions.

Responding to purported taxonomic anarchy, in an article published in the widely read journal Nature, Garnett & Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] opined on the need for "standardized global species lists", at the behest of conservationists, and proposed the construction of a judicial committee to "restrict … freedom of taxonomic action" and promote taxonomic stability. Here we reflect on this perspective and contest that the view of GC conflicts with some basic and indisputable principles underpinning the philosophy of science, most notably: it must be free. They appear to believe that taxonomic revisions should be based on political, economic and conservation concerns, and they treat species as fixed real entities, instead of refutable scientific hypotheses. In addition to such theoretical misconceptions, GC did not consider important practical aspects of what they term taxonomic anarchy, most significantly the participation of conservationists as authors of taxonomic works, and the importance of alternative management units, a well-established discussion in conservation biology.