[Previous by date - Re: Codes]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Codes]
[Next by subject - Re: Coelurosaur Phylogeny]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:54:07 -0600
From: "David M. Hillis" <dhillis@mail.utexas.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Codes
Now I have the rest of Gerry Moore's message. All I can say is that his experiences are very different than mine. The only objections I hear when I explain the PhyloCode are from people who worry about the possibility of two competing, parallel systems of nomenclature (a point to which I fully agree). I cannot believe that anyone wants that...two different names for everything, and no one able to understand the other side. Sounds like nomenclatural hell to me, and I suspect that we'd lose a lot more people like me if we went that route than we would lose by making an upgraded, single, comprehensive code. And, if people did not go alone at first with an upgraded, universal Code, it really wouldn't matter, because their names could still be incorporated into the new system seamlessly (as long as we have forward- and reverse-compatibility). There are always people who say they won't upgrade any given program, but it eventually becomes necessary if they want to communicate with their colleagues. I'm think the PhyloCode will also be like that. The only other point that I didn't already respond to was: >Hillis was critical of the existing system, noting that it required >"diagnoses of taxa rather than phylogenetic 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. The difference is that the diagnosis doesn't have any required connection to the name under the existing codes, so even if the diagnosis is accurate, someone else is free to apply the name to a group that doesn't fit the diagnosis. There has to be a diagnosis, but it doesn't have to be correct, and it doesn't carry any weight in assigning the name to a group of organisms. That decision is entirely subjective, as long as the group contains the type species. Under the PhyloCode, the definitions are formulated in such a way that they unambiguously apply to a single clade in the Tree of Life. Our understanding of phylogeny may change, but the definition always points to a single, unambiguous clade, no matter what the phylogenetic hypothesis may be. 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