So, is there any change at all that you would notice if you were examining Boloceroides daphneae when it was moved to Relicanthus?
I'll say NO on principle.
Albeit I don't know why in the world I'd be examining a Boloceroides daphneae.
I can't even pronounce it!
Kylie said:
If so, what would that change be?
You don't get it, do you, Kylie?
If tomorrow they would rewrite a giraffe from a
Giraffa to a
Struthio, I would claim that the giraffe is now a different "kind" of animal.
That's because its genus was changed -- therefore its kind was changed.
But God, in His omniscience, knows what the proper classification should be; and He would never make the mistake of classifying a Relicanthus as a Boloceroides in the first place.
To err is human, but to really foul things up takes a trigger-happy scientist, prone to naming things prematurely, then renaming them, and renaming them, and renaming them.
And then pat each other on the head and call it "progress."
So yes, I'll follow them around with their naming conventions.
If they want to call something Boloceroides, who am I to disagree?
Later if they change it to Relicanthus, who am I do disagree?
But if they say there's no set definition for "kind," I'm going to disagree.