[Previous by date - poorly known groups]
[Next by date - Fwd:]
[Previous by subject - Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]
[Next by subject - Prototypes for Next Low-Bandwidth Version of the Dinosauricon]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:22:46 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: "Janovec, John" <jjanovec@nybg.org>
Cc: "'PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu'" <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Problems with the PhyloCode? [Re: your mail]
Dr. Janovec wrote: On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Janovec, John wrote: > If we freeze names of clades based on current phylogenetic understanding (or > misunderstanding), then what happens when the phylogenies change? The names This is a MAJOR problem, but not one with the PhyloCode. Some recent explorations of phylogenetic nomenclature have proceeded from what I call the "describing MY tree" persepctive, and this is certainly a poorly thought out. Phylogenetic nomenclatural schema should be constructed so as to maximally reconcile traditional nomenclature and changing concepts of taxonomy, a point abundantly reflected in the Code. The phylocode has many provisions (such as multiple specifiers, qualifying clauses) to allow the application of nomenclature in areas of poor phylogenetic resolution. If there is indeed NO phylogenetic information avialable, it may be preferrable to not name higher groups formally, and only use them in an informal context until more work is performed. As others have noted, one of the important "innovations" of the PhyloCode is that you do not HAVE to name taxa until you are ready to. You are not obligated to arrange everything into orders just because you find one "superfamilial" group (whatever that is) in one part of your tree. This "relaxed" attitude to nomenclature is apparently very attractive to neontologists. For paleontologists, the elimination of formal ranks is equally attractive, because it means we eventually *won't* have to worry about making our genera the "equivalents" of modern genera. As for "rank free," well, let's just say that, in the abandonment formal ranks, we allow the natural heriarchy of phylogeny to freely extert itself. If this is rank, so be it. As for "stability is ignorance," well, it always has been, ever since Darwin. As I said before, Linneaus has been dead for centuries. Changing ideas of phylogeny dooms us to changing taxonomic content. This is why, for Phylognenetic Nonclature, stability is measured in terms of whether a name always refers to the same entity, not whether or not it always contains the same taxa. The expectation of constant clade composition *IS* ignorance. Hope this helps, Wagner P.S. And, for the record, ANY nomenclature which exclusively recognizes monophyletic "taxa" is, BY DEFINITION, a "node-pointing system." The difrerence is whether the formula (defintion) used to point out the node is explicit or a holdover form typological concepts of nomenclature.