Randy writes

> Although I don't know if the above was a good example, the maxim of science is that absolutely everything is up for reinterpretation. That is why questioning, challenging, and discussion can be so fruitful.

* Taxonomy (the classification of species) is probably the best and worst place to look for "facts". Example:

> Since the first detailed study by Gerstacker (1862), anywhere from 3 to 24 species [of honey bee] have been recognized. The 178 species- and 10 genus-group names (including those proposed herein) are brought for the first time into accord with the modern classification of the honey bees. 

> This seems an appropriate venue to comment on the apparent confusion of the valid name for this species. The persistent use of the unjustified replacement name A. mellifica by some modern authors is distressing and either demonstrates a general ignorance of taxonomic rules or a flagrant dismissal of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Ignorance of the Code is understandable as not all biologists are intimately familiar, or even have an express need to be so familiar, with its rules and nuances. 

> Dismissal of the Code is, however, a more serious situation.  The criticism that the name mellifica is more descriptive than mellifera is beside the point and, if the argument of Benton (1904) is followed, vastly incorrect anyway. Suffice to say, the use of A. mellifera versus A. mellifica is not a matter of personal choice. Apis mellifera is the only valid name for this species and authors should abide by this.  

from:
The Taxonomy of Recent and Fossil Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Apis)
Michael S. Engel. 1999. Journal of Hymenoptera Research
             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L