[Previous by date - on universaliy of Phylocode]
[Next by date - Re: on universaliy of Phylocode]
[Previous by subject - Re: languages in PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: on universaliy of Phylocode]
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:20:05 +0300
From: "Igor Ya. Pavlinov" <igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru>
To: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Cc: PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: on universaliy of Phylocode
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_XOh5UobvFDNGlMx/PhlUeA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Re: on universaliy of PhylocodeDear Michel,=20
if you ever read my paper I've sent you you woudl see that my somewhat =
sceptical position in respect to the phylocode is caused by my =
"historical" view of that fates of various classificatory approaches. =
You just recall that "the new systematics" and phenetics were dominating =
prior to cladistics in XX century while the pre-phylogenetic taxonomy of =
XIX century was based on naturphilosophie. And where they all are now? =
So, I suspect there will come time when cladistics along with the =
phylocode will become "old-fashioned". It is neither bad nor good, it is =
just a general law of development of any scientific discipline. And =
unity of language is one of the most strong "glue" factors that make =
different classificatory approaches just branches of the same biological =
taxonomy.=20
Of course, this provides specific problems considered recently by Marc =
Ereshefsky: for instance the Linnean species are not the Darwinian ones =
although they are both called "species". But then we have to acknowledge =
that "eco-species" are not the same as "phylo-species". Following the =
logic of the phylocode promoters, we have to adopt different =
nomenclature to different kinds of species, and each author, before =
naming his/her species properly would be oblidged to decide first with =
which kind of species he/she deals with.=20
And this returns us to the phylocode again. It is applied to =
monophyletic taxa which is excellent in theory. But practice is much =
more diverse than it is presumd by any law. Suppose you recognize and =
name a group as monophyletic. And someone else disapprove your =
conclusion or disagree with your opinion - say, just because that =
someone disagree with your method or a programm employed (Farris vs =
Felsenstein vs Estabrook vs Swofford). What it may mean from the =
phylocode standpoint? How one has to treat names of taxa which supposed =
monophyletic status is falsified by other studies or is not acknowledged =
by other members of taxonomic community? Does phylocode considers such =
a situation? I gues it doesn't.
Igor
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michel Laurin=20
To: Igor Ya. Pavlinov=20
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: on universaliy of Phylocode
Hi Igor,
I speak only for myself, but as I understand it, I expect the =
PhyloCode to co-exist with the rank-based codes for some time, =
especially that it currently does not deal with species (binomial) =
names. This last point may change soon, but I don't think that anybody =
expects all systematists to drop the rank-based codes tommorw and =
adopt the PhyloCode; that's what I will do (and most participants of the =
First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting), except for =
species names, but I know that some of my colleagues won't follow us, =
at least right now.
Sincerely,
Michel
In several responces on my last communication, an idea occurs that =
Phylogode is designed for cladists and that those non-cladist guys =
disagree with it are free to go their own way. OK, it looks like a =
special kind of plurality in science which I like very much and even =
published a paper entitled "It is normal for the classificatory =
approaches to be diversed". But does such a nomenclatorial pluralism =
presumes that several Codes of nomenclature are allowed to rule over =
taxonomic community? Suppose rigorous cladists (of whatever school) will =
reject the International Code and will adopt the Phylocode on one of the =
Willi Hennig society meetings - then what about unity of taxonomic =
language in general and nomenclature stability in particular?
Igor
P.S. A quesion to the moderator: will you please explane if a =
responce to a comment came from a particular e-mail address woulld =
circulate over all forum participants?
- - -
Dr. Igor Ya. Pavlinov
Chief, Division of Mammals
Zoological Museum
Moscow M.V.Lomonosov State University
ul. Bol. Nikitskya, 6
125009 Moscow
Russia
Tel.: (095)2032940
Fax: (095)2032717
E-mail: igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru
=20
--=20
Michel Laurin
FRE 2696, CNRS
Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot
2, place Jussieu
case 7077
75005 Paris
FRANCE
tel. (33 1) 44 27 36 92
fax. (33 1) 44 27 56 53
http://tolweb.org/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html
--Boundary_(ID_XOh5UobvFDNGlMx/PhlUeA)
Content-type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: on universaliy of Phylocode</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE type=3Dtext/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>Dear Michel, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>if you ever read my paper I've =
sent you you=20
woudl see that my somewhat sceptical position in respect to the =
phylocode is=20
caused by my "historical" view of that fates of various classificatory=20
approaches. You just recall that "the new systematics" and phenetics =
were=20
dominating prior to cladistics in XX century while the pre-phylogenetic =
taxonomy=20
of XIX century was based on naturphilosophie. And where they all are =
now? So, I=20
suspect there will come time when cladistics along with the phylocode =
will=20
become "old-fashioned". It is neither bad nor good, it is just a general =
law of=20
development of any scientific discipline. And unity of language is one =
of the=20
most strong "glue" factors that make different classificatory =
approaches=20
just branches of the same biological taxonomy. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>Of course, this provides specific =
problems=20
considered recently by Marc Ereshefsky: for instance the Linnean=20
species are not the Darwinian ones although they are both called =
"species".=20
But then we have to acknowledge that "eco-species" are not the same as=20
"phylo-species". Following the logic of the phylocode promoters, we have =
to=20
adopt different nomenclature to different kinds of species, and each =
author,=20
before naming his/her species properly would be oblidged to decide first =
with=20
which kind of species he/she deals with. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>And this returns us to the =
phylocode again.=20
It is applied to monophyletic taxa which is excellent in theory. But =
practice is=20
much more diverse than it is presumd by any law. Suppose you =
recognize and=20
name a group as monophyletic. And someone else disapprove your =
conclusion=20
or disagree with your opinion - say, just because that someone =
disagree=20
with your method or a programm employed (Farris vs Felsenstein vs =
Estabrook vs=20
Swofford). What it may mean from the phylocode standpoint? How one has =
to treat=20
names of taxa which supposed monophyletic status is falsified by other =
studies=20
or is not acknowledged by other members of taxonomic community? Does=20
phylocode </FONT><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2> considers such =
a situation?=20
I gues it doesn't.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>Igor</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr" =
title=3Dlaurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>Michel=20
Laurin</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru" =
title=3Digor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru>Igor=20
Ya. Pavlinov</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 06, 2004 =
1:10=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: on universaliy of=20
Phylocode</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Igor,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> </X-TAB>I speak =
only=20
for myself, but as I understand it, I expect the PhyloCode to co-exist =
with=20
the rank-based codes for some time, especially that it currently does =
not deal=20
with species (binomial) names. This last point may change soon, =
but I=20
don't think that anybody expects all systematists to drop =
the =20
rank-based codes tommorw and adopt the PhyloCode; that's what I will =
do (and=20
most participants of the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature =
Meeting), except for species names, but I know that some =
of my=20
colleagues won't follow us, at least right now.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> =20
</X-TAB>Sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> =
</X-TAB>Michel</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>In several responces on =
my last=20
communication, an idea occurs that Phylogode is designed for =
cladists and=20
that those non-cladist guys disagree with it are free to go their =
own way.=20
OK, it looks like a special kind of plurality in science which I =
like very=20
much and even published a paper entitled "It is normal for the=20
classificatory approaches to be diversed". But does such a =
nomenclatorial=20
pluralism presumes that several Codes of nomenclature are allowed to =
rule=20
over taxonomic community? Suppose rigorous cladists (of whatever =
school)=20
will reject the International Code and will adopt the Phylocode on=20
one of the Willi Hennig society meetings - then what about =
unity=20
of taxonomic language in general and nomenclature stability in=20
particular?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT =
size=3D-1>Igor</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>P.S. A quesion to the =
moderator:=20
will you please explane if a responce to a comment came from a =
particular=20
e-mail address woulld circulate over all forum=20
participants?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>- - -<BR>Dr. Igor Ya.=20
Pavlinov<BR>Chief, Division of Mammals<BR>Zoological =
Museum<BR>Moscow=20
M.V.Lomonosov State University<BR>ul. Bol. Nikitskya, 6<BR>125009=20
Moscow<BR>Russia<BR>Tel.: (095)2032940<BR>Fax:=20
(095)2032717<BR>E-mail:</FONT> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru"><FONT=20
size=3D-1>igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D-1><BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><X-SIGSEP><PRE>--=20
</PRE></X-SIGSEP>
<DIV>Michel Laurin<BR>FRE 2696, CNRS<BR>Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis=20
Diderot<BR>2, place Jussieu<BR>case 7077<BR>75005 =
Paris<BR>FRANCE<BR><BR>tel.=20
(33 1) 44 27 36 92<BR>fax. (33 1) 44 27 56=20
=
53<BR>http://tolweb.org/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html</DIV></BLOCKQUO=
TE></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_XOh5UobvFDNGlMx/PhlUeA)--