[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by date - RE: S. Redhead's recent posts]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:30:01 -0400
From: Scott Redhead <redheads@EM.AGR.CA>
To: cantino@ohiou.edu, PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs
Dear Phil - thanks for information. It gave me pause but did not change my = opinion of credibility (regardless of positions taken). I was actually = trying hard to be civilized.=20 It may not reflect badly on the "PhyloCode" to have personal classification= s posted and promoted, but it also does nothing to resolve codification = issues if it is not linked to the function of the code. Perhaps I was = under the mistake notion that this listserver was established to discuss = the draft PhyloCode. I suppose we all have to shift through a lot of sand = to find the few nuggets of gold. Buried within the ideology behind the = PhyloCode are some good ideas, but renaming all organisms will never = fly.=20 Recently it was voiced that perhaps a PhyloCode could be released that did = not address genera and species. The International Code of Botanical = Nomenclature does not regulate names above the level of family. Systematist= s are free to use whatever name they choose above family (for "plants", = "fungi" sensu lato). The overlap between the ICBN and such a PhyloCode = would be very narrow (family and subfamilial but not generic). For = example, Archaeoascomycetes and Neolectomycetes and Taphrinomycotina = compete and there are no rules to force use of one or the other. http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/fungi/ascomycota/ascomycota.ht= ml http://www.umu.se/myconet/curr/outline.00.html Because there are no regulations above family level, there could be room = for a code of sorts to help establish stability. But I do not believe that = the proposed system will work at the species or perhaps the generic level. = Instead of creating enemies by threatening to over turn centuries of = naming, serious consideration should be given to supplementing the = existing codes, rather than replacing them. It is one of the reasons I = mentioned Olmstead's paper earlier. Yet nobody commented on their = methodology. Instead we get lists of dinosaurs.=20 This is my attempt not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The = other saying that comes to mind is, "With friends like these, who needs = enemies" But it is not a matter of friends. Logic and commonsense should = be the guiding principles.=20 Consider my recent messages as wake up calls. I'll try to go deep and = silent again. Thanks, Scott R. =20 >>> Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu> 05/17 11:11 AM >>> Scott, please be aware that Kinman OPPOSES the PhyloCode. This listserver is open to anyone who wants to participate, provided the dialog remains civil and does not degenerate into personal attacks. I fail to see how the fact that someone promotes their personal classification on this listserver somehow reflects badly on the PhyloCode. Phil