[Previous by date - Distinction between Traditional and Phylogenetic (was Re: Codes)]
[Next by date - Re: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter]
[Previous by subject - Now online: Critique of Benton's (2000) "critique" of the Ph=]
[Next by subject - One more Recommendation?]
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:31:20 -0500
From: "Janovec, John" <jjanovec@nybg.org>
To: "'PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu'" <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter
Dear Phylocode listserv participants, I am very curious to know what the take is on the recent "OOPS" (On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics) paper published in a recent issue of Cladistics. Does it not bring up some very good points to consider regarding the proposed Phylocode? As a working taxonomist surrounded by many other working taxonomists, I found that the Nixon and Carpenter perspective touched on some very important points, in a comparative manner, about the proposed and current codes. As a student familiarizing myself with the proposed and current codes, I get the strong feeling that we'll always have the Linnaean system, and that the proposed Phylocode can only function as a tool for investigating and communicating evolutionary patterns. The Nixon and Carpenter analysis of the 'lineage' of phylogenetic hypotheses for Angiosperms really makes me curious to know if the Phylocode can ever be as stable as it is said to be. I am still open-minded about the entire situation. I am learning. I am curious. I am skeptical. Bom dia, Mr. Casey E.