[Previous by date - Re: Subscribers]
[Next by date - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Previous by subject - Re: [Making Up Names _versus_ Emending Names]]
[Next by subject - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:34:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: kinman@usa.net
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: [Re: Subscribers]
Mike,
It may seem as though there is a relative "vacuum" for the names abov=
e
family level rank, but what is not commonly known is that official
recommendations for higher ranks have been made (and ICBN mandates certai=
n
endings for ordinal taxa).
The ICBN mandates that Order names shall end with the suffix -ales. =
And
although ICZN does not address ordinal level taxa, the Zoological Science=
s
Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has
recommended that zoological orders be given the ending -ida (as has long =
been
done by the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleonotology). I follow both the
botanical mandate and the zoological recommendation for invertebrates. =
However, for chordate orders I use the -iformes ending since a majority o=
f
those orders (fish and birds) were already standardized with that ending.=
There are no mandates for the names of classes, but again the Zoolog=
ical
Sciences Section of the AAAS recommends that the names of classes be give=
n the
standard ending -ea, which I follow. The ICBN recommends the -opsida end=
ing
for metaphytes and the -mycetes ending for eumycotans, which I have sligh=
tly
modified (by one letter) to -opsidea and -mycetea, so that all classes in=
all
kingdoms of organisms would have a common -ea suffix.
At the phylum level, the zoological recommendation is that all shoul=
d end
with -a, which I follow, the botanists recommend -phyta and -mycota for
metaphytes and eumycotans (which I also follow), and it has been proposed=
that
protist phyla be given the standardized ending -protista (which I gave as=
alternate names after each of the traditional phylum names.
Therefore, there is not a desparate need for PhyloCode for taxa at h=
igher
taxonomic levels. What is needed is for ICZN, ICBN, and BioCode to take
decisive action instead of mere recommendations. Since PhyloCode seeks t=
o
abolish Linnean ranks, asking that it step in would obviously be a waste =
of my
time.
I prefer to work within the established codes as far as possible, b=
ut I
would like to see PhyloCode modified in any way that will minimize confus=
ion
and conflict with those established codes. Therefore I support your
suggestions for alternate names for taxa that have well-known paraphyleti=
c
usages (Osteichthyes, Reptilia, Synapsida, etc.).
------Ken Kinman =
***************************************
"T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Scott Redhead wrote:
> As some know, I wrote a commentary on the PhyloCode pointing out how
> ridiculous it was to eliminate species
PhyloCode doesn't eliminate species....
> Recently I was impressed by the paper *Disintegration of the
> Scrophulariaceae* 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.
Discrepancies can arise between PhyloCode and the ICBN, though. Suppose
Someone names families for the genera _Alpha_, _Beta_, and _Gamma_. They
fulfill ICBN requirements *and* provide stem-based cladistic definition
for _Alphaceae_ (_Alpha_ <-- _Beta_, _Gamma_), _Betaceae_ (_Beta_ <--
_Alpha_, _Gamma_), and _Gammaceae_ (_Gamma_ <-- _Alpha_, _Beta_).
Then suppose a traditionalist discovers a new genus, _Delta_, for which
they name a new family, _Deltaceae_, in accordance with ICBN rules.
Suppose _Delta_ is within Clade _Alphaceae_. According to PhyloCode rules=
,
_Delta_ will be an alphacean, but under the ICBN, it will be a deltacean!=
And, if _Deltaceae_ is ever cladistically defined, _Delta_ will belong to=
both clades, which is absolutely impossible under traditional taxonomy,
since they are of the same rank.
Furthermore, I don't know about the other codes, but the ICZN doesn't
cover suprafamilial taxa *at all*, so there is a real need for some kind
of code in this area.
I agree that until PhyloCode goes into effect things should probably be
done, as much as possible, in accord with the current codes.
_________________________________________________________________________=
____
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com=
>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn> =
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1