Message 2001-06-0087: Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs

Thu, 17 May 2001 12:30:01 -0400

[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>
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 =

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.

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.

Scott R.

 >>> Philip Cantino <> 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



Feedback to <> is welcome!