[Previous by date - RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - RE: Benton's paper]
[Previous by subject - Articles 19 & 20, Table 1, Appendix A]
[Next by subject - BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts]
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:40:03 +0100
From: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Benton's paper
Hi all, I have read Benton's manuscript, and I must say that I am not impressed. It is a collection of misconceptions about phylogenetic taxonomy, and it is based on a confusion on practical problems that have arisen out of the use of phylogenetic definitions. Many of these problems should be fixed by the Phylocode (that is one of its main purposes, as I understand it), and Benton fails to understand or accept that. I will explain my point of view below, but let me first state that I think that this paper is so poorly argued that it would not deserve a reply, except to prevent the possibility that the absence of a reply from us might be interpreted as a lack of argument against Benton's paper, or an implicit acceptation of the problems that he raised. Thus, I think that we should reply, only to clarify our position. First, Benton emphasizes repeatedly that classifications are only convenient human constructs. This was partly (if not largely) true of linnean classifications, but this is not true of phylogenetic taxonomy (to the extent that it describes historical entities). Thus, Benton inappropriately uses his position that classifications only need to be convenient and stable, and that they don't need to be natural, to criticize a set of taxonomic principles that are designed to make taxonomy both stable and natural. Second, I think that Benton misleads the readers in suggesting that Linnean taxonomy has led to stability. The casea of Mammalia and Anthracosauria both show this. Rowe & Gauthier (1992) provided a review of all the meanings that have been given to the name Mammalia, that ranges from Synapsida to Theria. It was even amusing to see how some authors had used two or three different concepts of the name Mammalia. The case of Anthracosauria is less well known, but I have discussed it recently (Laurin, 1998). This taxon has also had a very confusing history. These are only two examples, but we could find hundreds, I think, so I strongly disagree with Benton's position here. Benton argues that two cladograms demand different nomenclatures (in section "(2) Explicit, universal and stable?"). This depends on how one defines nomenclature. In any case, the definitions need not change, although the composition of a taxon will change to reflect the new phylogeny. This is unavoidable if one accepts only monophyletic taxa, even in the Linnean taxonomy, and Benton does not seem to appreciate this. This could be explained in more detail, but I think that you all understand, so I won't. Benton then makes the point that various clades have been given various names, and that the same name has been defined in at least two ways, using the case of the names Aves, Neornithes, and other theropod taxa. Here, he is right, and I have already argued (Laurin, 1998) that the lack of adherence of the proponents of the principles of synonymy and priority by the very people that have proposed it would deter other people from accepting and using these principles. Unfortunately, in addition to the problems that Benton cites, de Queiroz and Gauthier have proposed two different definitions of Amphibia, and have defined synonymous names for both of these clades (Temnospondyli and Lissamphibia). I must even admit that I have been guilty of similar faults, but in my case, this concerns my early work when I was not aware of the publications by deQeuiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994) that proposed these principles of synonymy and priority. In my latest papers, I have been very careful about respecting synonymy and priority, and I believe that with the Phylocode, most of us will adopt this position. Therefore, I believe that Benton is wrong when he argues that the Phylocode won't solve this problem. =20 Benton is also misled when he tries to explain that phylogenetic uncertainties will lead to multiple potential meanings of a definition. He justifies this claim by stating that if high-level taxa like Neornithes or Eumaniraptora are used as specifiers, and if one of these taxa were later found to be paraphyletic, or if its phylogeny were altered. This whole argument is wrong because the Phylocode will require that specimens, species or synapomorphies be used as specifiers (Chapter IV, article 11.1). Thus, Neornithes or Eumaniraptora could never be used as specifiers. Apparently, Benton did not read all of the Phylocode before writing his paper. These are my main comments. More could be said, of course, but that's enough for now. I just hope that you will receive this message because the last one that I sent about Nathan Wilson's question did not generate any comments from you (I don't know whether you received it or not). Sincerely, Michel References: de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. <italic>Systematic Zoology</italic> 39 (4): 307-322. de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. <italic>Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics</italic> 23 449-480. de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. <italic>Trends in Ecology and Evolution</italic> 9 (1): 27-31. Laurin, M. 1998. The importance of global parsimony and historical bias in understanding tetrapod evolution. Part I-systematics, middle ear evolution, and jaw suspension. <italic>Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, Paris, 13e S=E9rie</italic> 19 (1): 1-42. Rowe, T. and Gauthier, J. 1992. Ancestry, paleontology, and definition of the name Mammalia. <italic>Systematic Biology</italic> 41 (3): 372-378. <smaller>********************************** Michel Laurin Equipe 'Formations squelettiques' CNRS - UMR 8570 Case 7077 Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot 2, place Jussieu 75251 Paris cedex 05 France Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92 Fax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53 **********************************</smaller>