[Previous by date - Re: Codes]
[Next by date - Re: Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Codes]
[Next by subject - Re: Codes]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:15:05 -0600
From: "David M. Hillis" <dhillis@mail.utexas.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Codes
My copy of Gerry Moore's recent posting was truncated in each section, so I couldn't understand several of his points. However, a few pieces came through: >The two systems may use many of the same names but the names are >defined in very different ways. The task before the systematic >community now is to decide which one is better. I believe that there >is not enough evidence yet to make a clear judgment here. It is simp Group names are not defined at all in the old codes, which is why they can be applied by anyone in any way they see fit, as long as they contain the type species for the group. The new system does indeed remove this "flexibility" (in other words, subjectivity) by adding objective definitions to group names. I'm arguing to keep the system basically the same, but remove the subjectivity by linking the names to evolutionary history (in other words, to real historical groups). There are some other added benefits of version 2 (universality, data base of registered names), but they are all essentially added features to the old system. The old system (version 1) was pre-evolutionary, and it is about time to upgrade it to include the advancements of the past 150 or so years in evolutionary biology. I want to change as little as necessary to make the system objective, evolutionary, comprehensive, and useful, and I want the upgrade to be transparent to the vast majority of users. I am speaking about my personal goals and preferences; I do not know what the eventual convention that adopts the PhyloCode will choose to do. I do know that if the convention were to adopt a set of rules that forced me to make separate descriptions for taxa under the old and new codes (thus creating parallel and competing taxonomies), I would no longer have any interest in participating. I do see the PhyloCode advantages as great, but I think the advantages can all be incorporated as an upgrade. > >III. The Species problem > >In his recent posts Hillis has stressed that the PhyloCode should >incorporate rules for species before any official status is accorded >to the code. Under such a set of rules what would the status of >names be that were created under the existing system? Would species >names also require formal conversion from the traditional system >into the phylogenetic system? Who would be responsible for handling >the issues relating to conservation and rejection of species names? >Would the standing committees that deal with these matters under the >existing system be "co-opted" by new committees under the PhyloCode? > Gerry must not understand what I mean by forward- and reverse-compatibility. Under Method M for species names, the exact same species description can fit the rules of both the old and the new codes. Thus, people can begin taking advantage of the new system immediately (even before a formal PhyloCode is adopted), and the names will still be recognized by the old codes. I have species descriptions in press that use Method M, but also satisfy all the requirements of the ICZN code. They will be treated under the ICZN rules until such time as the PhyloCode is officially adopted, after which they will fit both sets of rules (with the addition of registration). I think this feature is essential to the upgrade process. Eventually, everyone will take advantage of the new system's features (either in their own descriptions, or by conversion of their names by someone else). David Hillis David M. Hillis Director, School of Biological Sciences Director's office: 512-232-3690 (FAX: 512-232-3699) Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor Section of Integrative Biology University of Texas Austin, TX 78712 Research Office: 512-471-5792 Lab: 512-471-5661 FAX: 512-471-3878 E-mail: dhillis@mail.utexas.edu