Message 2001-02-0073: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:31:20 -0500

[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" <>
To: "''" <>
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.


Feedback to <> is welcome!