[Previous by date - Notation for Distincton Between Systems]
[Next by date - Re: hands off genera?]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: codes]
[Next by subject - Fwd: species and clades]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:25:32 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: hands off genera?
I am commenting on two related messages. Ken Kinman wrote: > Glad to hear you have made progress on the provision to differentially >mark phylocode names (with a slash) as was discussed on TAXACOM last fall). and Mike Keesey wrote: > >I always prefered the "Clade _Name_" vs. "(Rank) Name" idea myself (e.g. >Clade _Synapsida_ vs. Subclassis Synapsida). Advantages over the slash >system are that it can be spoken and can be readily appreciated by anyone, >even if they are unfamiliar with PhyloCode. I can see advantages of each of these methods, and other methods have been proposed as well. The current draft of the PhyloCode does not attempt to dictate which method should be used. Rather, it simply suggests (Rec. 6.1B) that it may be desirable to indicate which code governs a name in certain circumstances. Two examples are provided showing how this might be done, but the examples are not intended to be exhaustive. Once the PhyloCode is implemented, is is likely that frequency of usage of the various conventions will eventually lead to the universal adoption of one of them by authors and editors. On the other hand, perhaps this recommendation should be reconsidered. I have argued repeatedly that PhyloCode names should be distinguished by a mandatory symbol of some sort (a slash would be fine with me), but the majority of the advisory group strongly opposes this. An intermediate approach would be to have the use of a distinguishing symbol remain optional but designate a particular convention that is to be used if one wishes to indicate which code governs a name. This is comparable to the approach taken to author citations in Art. 20; author citations are not required, but if authors are cited, certain conventions must be used. If the PhyloCode takes this approach, it would have to be determined before implementation which convention will be used to distinguish governance of names rather than allowing systematists at large to determine this through usage. >The slash idea does kind of bring up an interesting possibility -- a usage >parallel to that of computer directories: >Mammalia/Theria/Primates/Simii/Platyrhini/Hominoidea/Hominidae/Homo >(But colons would probably be better understood.) > I think this was one reason why the slash was proposed. (Is this true, David?) Ken Kinman wrote: > During those same discussions, you probably recall that I >suggested that >generic names (as well as specific names) not be included in the initial >testing phase of phylocode. Now others are suggesting the same thing on this >list. > Is this being seriously considered? I hope so, since one of David >Baum's stated goals is to avoid taxonomic chaos, and it seems increasingly >clear that trying to tackle generic names before testing phylocode at higher >taxonomic levels could result in more chaos, rather than less. > - No, it isn't being seriously considered. A clade is a clade, regardless of its rank under the ICBN, ICZN, etc. If the PhyloCode is to be logically consistent and cohesive, it must govern the naming of all clades. Furthermore, there are practical problems with excluding genus names. Some clades are classified under the current system as genera by some authors and as subgenera by others. Would the PhyloCode be able to name these clades or not? What if a clade that is traditionally classified as a subgenus or section is subsequently "elevated" to the genus level under the IC_N (for example, the publication of the genus Pseudocaryopteris, based on Caryopteris section Pseudocaryopteris) after it has been named under the PhyloCode? Would the PhyloCode then have to abandon the name Pseudocaryopteris now that it refers to a genus? As we all know, rank designation is arbitrary and biologically meaningless. To me, it makes no sense to place restrictions on the PhyloCode based on arbitrary ranking decisions under the traditional system. 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