Message 2001-06-0035: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:34:05 -0600 (MDT)

[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)
Subject: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

    It may seem as though there is a relative "vacuum" for the names abov=
family level rank, but what is not commonly known is that official
recommendations for higher ranks have been made (and ICBN mandates certai=
endings for ordinal taxa).
    The ICBN mandates that Order names shall end with the suffix -ales.  =
although ICZN does not address ordinal level taxa, the Zoological Science=
Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has
recommended that zoological orders be given the ending -ida (as has long =
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=
those orders (fish and birds) were already standardized with that ending.=

     There are no mandates for the names of classes, but again the Zoolog=
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=
for metaphytes and the -mycetes ending for eumycotans, which I have sligh=
modified (by one letter) to -opsidea and -mycetea, so that all classes in=
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=
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=
taxonomic levels.  What is needed is for ICZN, ICBN, and BioCode to take
decisive action instead of mere recommendations.  Since PhyloCode seeks t=
abolish Linnean ranks, asking that it step in would obviously be a waste =
of my
      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=
and conflict with those established codes.  Therefore I support your
suggestions for alternate names for taxa that have well-known paraphyleti=
usages (Osteichthyes, Reptilia, Synapsida, etc.).
           ------Ken Kinman  =

"T. Mike Keesey" <> 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.

 Home Page               <>
  The Dinosauricon        <>
   personal                <> --> <
    Dinosauricon-related    <>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn> =

Get free email and a permanent address at


Feedback to <> is welcome!