I tell this brief but convoluted story for two reasons. First, many (most?) on the list may be unaware of this convoluted history and take it for granted that taxonomy is a stable enterprise, thanks to the lack of citation or earlier work in favor of the “latest” and “hottest” papers . Second, I return to the point that these “forms” are biologically responding to physical cues and that these characteristics are telling us important things unrelated to the names we attach to specific colonies. In the end, the challenge is to figure out how to respect the importance of both nomenclature and function. Taxonomy is incredibly important when we make comparisons across space (and, for us rock folks, add time – paleontologists have to wrestle with long-term temporal connections in which the roles of genetics vs environment vs evolution make life even more problematic).

But, to get back to what I understand as the underlying thread, I think that the argument should not be about the value of nomenclature vs functional morphology vs other environmental relationships and genetics. All have value and the goal is to figure out how to maintain the connections among the different views. We need to make sure we have the same species when we make site-to-site comparisons; if we are going to argue about diversity, we need to correctly separate and lump things. At the same time, we need to remember that morphologies are telling us things that the names don’t. And, in deference to Phil, reefs are disappearing while we build on the stereotype of scientists sitting in “ivory towers” ignoring the world around us.

My only concrete contribution to the thread is what I already said – might a picture be worth a thousand words when it comes to seeking help from the people who are really good at coral identification? If this is rambling, I apologize – I’m in northern Maine “on vacation” and am getting ready to go off the grid.

Dennis