Message 2001-02-0058: Re: Codes

Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:58:00 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: codes]
[Next by date - Re: Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts]
[Next by subject - Re: Codes]

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:58:00 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: Gerry Moore <>
Subject: Re: Codes

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Gerry Moore wrote:
> definitions, and the diagnoses don't even have to be correct." However under 
> the PhyloCode one can define taxon names under a phylogenetic hyopthesis 
> that is also later proven incorrect. [...]
	While the hypothesis may be incorrect, and the clades may
have a substantially different composition (or, with qualifying clauses,
may not exist at all), this has no effect on the "avalidity" of the named 
clade. One point of Phylognenetic Nomenclature (a point treated in the
literature in several notable papers, including the orginal paper on the
subject) is that phogenetic names identify clades, entities that exist
objectively, regardless of analytical result (or objectively may not
exist, see my earlier comments on qualifying clauses). This point is often
lost on people, including some members of this list: a phylognetic
defintion is NOT an hypothesis, it is (ideally) a recognition of an
objectively real entity.
	In practice, some systematists choose to apply phylogenetic
nomenclature in what is (to my mind) an irresponsible manner, appending
names which traditionally apply to a particular group to a definition
which fits that group ONLY in their preferred tree. This is *not* a
weakness of phylogenetic nomenclature, it is a weakness in its
application. This is (one reason) why we need a PhyloCode.
	So, I am not sure I agree with your analogy of traditional and
phylogenetic nomenclatural schemes. Phlogenetic "taxa" are clades (or
species), and are always real, although their content must be discovered,
while traditional taxa are groupings, and we can never be sure they
consitute a complete clade (some members may be unrecovered); they may not
even have an exclusive relationship with regards to other known taxa.
These are very different situations.



Feedback to <> is welcome!