Message 2001-06-0037: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

Tue, 01 May 2001 10:01:47 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Next by date - Subscribers]
[Previous by subject - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Next by subject - Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]

Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:01:47 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

Ken Kinman wrote:

    It may seem as though there is a relative "vacuum" for the names above
family level rank, but what is not commonly known is that official
recommendations for higher ranks have been made (and ICBN mandates certain
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 Sciences
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.=20
However, for chordate orders I use the -iformes ending since a majority of
those orders (fish and birds) were already standardized with that ending.
     There are no mandates for the names of classes, but again the =
Sciences Section of the AAAS recommends that the names of classes be given =
standard ending -ea, which I follow.  The ICBN recommends the -opsida =
for metaphytes and the -mycetes ending for eumycotans, which I have =
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 should =
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 =
taxonomic levels.  What is needed is for ICZN, ICBN, and BioCode to take
decisive action instead of mere recommendations.  Since PhyloCode seeks to
abolish Linnean ranks, asking that it step in would obviously be a waste =
of my

>For those who accept the principle that a taxon name ought to be more =
strongly tied to a taxon than to a taxonomic rank, the existence of these =
unofficial rank-associated endings at higher taxonomic levels INCREASES =
rather than decreases the need for the PhyloCode.  From the perspective of =
phylogenetic nomenclature, names without rank-associated endings and not =
governed by any traditional code function more like names governed by the =
PhyloCode in that they tend to be more strongly associated with taxa than =
with ranks.  I should also point out that the PhyloCode does NOT seek to =
abolish ranks; it only seeks to remove them from the role they play in the =
reference of taxon names.  Rank-assoicated endings are central to this =
role and thus are a major part of the conflict between traditional and =
phylogenetic approaches to nomenclature.

Kevin de Queiroz


Feedback to <> is welcome!