[Previous by date - Codes]
[Next by date - The root dichotomy of PhyloCoders [Re: Fwd: codes]]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: what prevents us from establishing...]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:38:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: codes
At 08:02 PM 2/10/01 -0500, Philip D. Cantino wrote: >Jonathan Wagner wrote: > >> Sadly, the inclusion of provisions for qualifying clauses in the >Code falsifies this statement. > >How so? I don't follow your reasoning. Could you provide an example >of how a qualifying clause falsifies David's statement? Certainly. Under the intial precepts of phylogenetic nomenclature, De Quieroz and Gauthier asserted that the explicit association of a name to a particular clade assures the taxonomist that the entity to which he refers ALWAYS exists. This is because, for any phylogenetic definition, there is always a clade, an ancestor and all of its descendants, that it refers to. I would note that sometimes the clade contains only one species (the ancestor). More importantly (for our discussion) some definitional formats (stem-based with multiple internal specifiers) must be avoided for reasons of logic, although this latter point absolutely does not invalidate the point De Quieroz and Gauthier make. Simply put, such a definition does not *incontrovertably* designate a clade. And that is where we find the problem with qualifying clauses. Qualifying clauses, and potentially other aspect of a definition (e.g., multiple internal specifiers in a stem-based definition), effectively removes the explicit assocaition of a name with an ontologically real entity. When we allow this practice, we allow for the possibility that some of our named clades may not exist. While I do recognize the utility of qualifying clauses (as I have noted), I tearfully note the passing of one of the philosophically strongest points of phylogenetic nomenclature. I have used this point on many occaisions to emphasize the difference between phylognetic and typological taxa, and I have found that, once the other person wraps their head around the idea, it can be a very attractive notion. I am not sure if an example will be helpful, but: in the Phylocode (11.9, example 1), Pinnepedia is defined in such a way that it may not refer to a real clade. Of course, in hypotheses where it does not do so, it is not a valid name. However, in contrast, I can refer to Dinosauria (Recommendation 11A, example 1) as a real entity, whose existance is objective, and not subject to test or falsification. I hope this makes my point clear. If not, please feel free to ask, and I shall try to help further. Jonathan R. Wagner -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053 "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi