[Previous by date - Stepping back]
[Next by date - Re: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:40:46 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs
There are two serious misconceptions revealed in Scott Redhead's latest posting: >Buried within the ideology behind the PhyloCode are some good ideas, >but renaming all organisms will never fly. The goal of phylogenetic nomenclature isn't to rename organisms, but rather to govern the application of their names in a different way. Many names under the PhyloCode will continue to refer to the same set of organisms they do under the codes of traditional (rank-based) nomenclature. This will generally be the case when the taxon to which the name is applied under the traditional system is monophyletic (for example the plant taxa currently called Poaceae and Asteraceae will undoubtedly continue to bear those names under the PhyloCode). When a taxon recognized under the traditional codes is paraphyletic, its name will either be ignored by users of phylogenetic nomenclature or in some cases be applied to the clade that stems from the immediate common ancestor of the paraphyletic group. While it might appear at first glance that the latter approach will introduce confusion, the kind of ambiguity it introduces already exists under the traditional system, where many names are applied differently by different authors right now. For example, the plant family name Apocynaceae refers to a clade in some classifications and a paraphyletic group in others. Under the PhyloCode, this name would be used in the former sense only. >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. Systematists 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. The second sentence of this paragraph is incorrect (although the statement would be nearly correct for the Zoological Code, which does not regulate names above the level of superfamily). In the Botanical Code, on the other hand, many rules apply above the family level. For example, ICBN (2000) Articles 16 and 17 deal entirely with suprafamilial names. What Scott may be thinking of is ICBN Art. 11.9, which states that the principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of family. However, ICBN Rec. 16B.1 states: "In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority." Therefore, if one assumes that recommendations are meant to be followed, it is not correct that, if the PhyloCode applied only to taxa that are ranked under the ICBN above the genus level, the overlap between the two codes would be restricted to families and subfamilies. Phil Philip D. Cantino Professor and Chair Department of Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 U.S.A. Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126 Fax: (740) 593-1130 e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu