What is it to make an error in the identification of a named taxonomic group? In this article we argue that the conditions for being in error about the identity of taxonomic groups through their names have a history, and that the possibility of committing such errors is contingent on the regime of institutions and conventions governing taxonomy and nomenclature at any given point in time. More specifically, we claim that taxonomists today can be in error about the identity of taxonomic groups in a way that Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), who is routinely cited as the “founder” of modern taxonomy and nomenclature, simply could not be. Starting from a remarkable recent study into Linnaeus’s naming of Elephas maximus that led to the (putative) discovery of a (putative) nomenclatural error by him, we reconsider what it could mean to discover that Linnaeus misidentified a biological taxon in applying his taxon names. Through a further case study in Linnaean botany, we show that his practices of (re)applying names in taxonomic revisions reveal a take on determining “which taxon is which” that is strikingly different from that of contemporary taxonomists. Linnaeus, we argue, adopted a practice-based, hands-on concept of taxa as “nominal spaces” that could continue to represent the same taxon even if all its former members had been reallocated to other taxa.

在命名命名分类组的识别中出错是什么？在本文中，我们认为，通过分类名称错误识别生物分类群的条件有历史，并且犯下这种错误的可能性取决于在任何给定时间点管理分类学和命名法的机构和公约制度。及时。更具体地说，我们认为，分类学家对于分类学群体的身份可能会犯错误，而通常被称为现代分类学和命名法的“奠基人”的卡尔·林奈（Carl Linnaeus，1707-1778年）不可能做到这一点。从一个显着的最近的一项研究开始进入林奈的命名亚洲象 鲆导致他（公认的）发现了一个（公认的）命名错误，我们重新考虑了发现Linnaeus在使用他的分类单元名称时误认了一个生物分类单元的含义。通过对Linnaean植物学的进一步案例研究，我们显示出他在分类学修订中（重新）应用名称的做法揭示了确定“哪个分类单元是哪个”的观点，这与当代分类学家的观点截然不同。我们认为，Linnaeus采用了一种基于实践的动手概念，将分类单元作为“名义空间”，即使所有前成员都已重新分配到其他分类单元，也可以继续代表同一分类单元。