[Previous by date - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]
[Next by date - Re: Subscribers]
[Previous by subject - Stepping back]
[Next by subject - Subscribers]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:23:18 -0400
From: Scott Redhead <redheads@EM.AGR.CA>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Subscribers
Dear PhyloCode subscribers: To the credit of the operators of this listserver, and of the PhyloCode = web site, this forum is in the public domain. Those who are sympathetic = and also those that are unsympathetic to the idea of the PhyloCode are = privy to the conversations. Some active members perhaps have forgotten = that it is an open discussion, or perhaps do not care. Currently there are = 96 subscribers, according to the listserv@ohio.edu when queried by = *SEND/LIST PhyloCode* Selling the idea of the PhyloCode will be a hard = sell. It would help your cause immensely if the discussions took place in = a civilized manner, rather than *us* against *them* rhetoric. This should = have been apparent when the Vice-Chairman of the St. Louis Code - = International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (John McNeill) waded into the = discussion. I am not convinced of the need for a new code, the PhyloCode, which is not = to say that I am against cladistics. There will indeed be a tremendous = backlash against the PhyloCode when it is truly put into effect. You = should not deceive yourselves into thinking there will not be such a = backlash. I read the first draft of the PhyloCode released on the WWW, = and do not think it will work. I am waiting to see an improved version so = that we all can read the revised PhyloCode. I am also waiting to see if = there are any papers actually citing or invoking articles in the PhyloCode,= especially when corrections or re-alignments of taxa are proposed. Thus = far all I have seen are papers stating that the PhyloCode solves this = problem or that problem in a vague or abstract way. As some know, I wrote a commentary on the PhyloCode pointing out how = ridiculous it was to eliminate species, and how confusing it would be to = adopt uninomials based upon species epithets. Premature publication of = such ideas, while serving a useful purpose, in that they can be examined = and criticized, is seriously damaging the credibility of phylogenetists. Those engaged in creating the PhyloCode may be wasting a lot of time = re-inventing the wheel. Do you really have the time and resources to = monitor all such names? Will a society be set up to validate the PhyloCode?= Who among you wishes to spend time indexing and registering all the = names? While those of you pushing forward these changes discuss such = issues, others are pushing forward aligning new phylogenetic hypotheses = with existing codes. I know because I am doing it myself. Recently I was impressed by the paper *Disintegration of the Scrophulariace= ae* by Olmstead, DePamphilis, Wolke, Young, Elisons & Reeves (Amer. J. = Bot. 88: 348-361. 2001). What struck me as imaginative was the melding of = *PhyloCode* thinking with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.= Some of the ideas behind the PhyloCode are quite good, but there seems to = be no reason to have another Code. Olmstead created the *new* family, = Calceolariaceae (G. Don) Raf. ex Olmstead, fam. et stat. nov. in a very = traditional manner, citing a basionym, Calceolarieae G. Don, fulfilling = all requirements for the ICBN. However, they defined the taxon as = follows, *Calceolariceae are the least inclusive clade that contains = Calceolaria pinata, Porodittia triandra, and Jovellana violacea.* There = was of course, a fuller discussion of characters. Interestingly enough, none of those 3 named taxa, the types of their = generic names (ICBN), were actually in their analyses. The depicted = *clade* labelled Calceolariaceae, had only two representatives, labelled = Calceolaria mexicana and Jovellana sp. It can certainly be asked what = clade was named, especially if the named indicators taxa prove not to be = monophyletic as a group. Nonetheless, I think it was acceptable for them = to handle the situation in this way. To me, the newly raised family name = remains with the type for the generic basionym, even if Porodittia = triandra goes into another family. I mentioned this clever example to a = botanist (I*m a mycologist). He thought that it was not proper to mix old = ICBN with PhyloCode thinking, and that it was cheating using taxa not = included in the molecular analysis. I disagreed. But I also do not = currently support the PhyloCode. In the end, I think that higher taxa = (especially among microorganisms like fungi) will only be defined by such = circumscriptions, but bearing standard ICBN names, not replacement = PhyloCode names. Richard Olmstead pointed out to me that they chose to use the name = Veronicaceae (the oldest name available), in lieu of names such as = Plantaginaceae (in contradiction with the current ICBN) for another = family. Plantaginaceae is a conserved name. It turns out that flowering = plants are treated differently from fungi in the ICBN. There are unwanted = and unanticipated problems with the current ICBN because of the way plant = names are listed. Resolving these problems will require some changes. = Despite these problems, their paper will be taken seriously because the = authors have attempted to merge the old with the new. I see it as a useful = use of time and energy. I am still not convinced of the need for a = PhyloCode, but am keeping my mind and options open. I am also pushing = ahead to get on with the job of making the ICBN work in the face of the = exciting new discoveries. Please keep in mind that there are skeptics listening in, but ones with = open minds.=20 Scott A. Redhead, Ph.D. Curator - National Mycological Herbarium (DAOM) Systematic Mycology & Botany Wm. Saunder's Bldg. (#49), CEF Eastern Cereal & Oilseed Research Centre Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6 CANADA ph. (613) 759-1384 --- FAX (613) 759-1599 E-mail: redheads@em.agr.ca WWW: http://res.agr.ca/ecorc/staff/redh-s.htm Associate Editor: Mycologia -- Editor: Mycological Research