[Previous by date - Re: on universaliy of Phylocode]
[Next by date - question to moderator]
[Previous by subject - Re: on universaliy of Phylocode]
[Next by subject - Re: on universaliy of Phylocode]
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:28:06 +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_+57uGG/WrIiXNbbKSLHJuQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Re: on universaliy of Phylocode
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michel Laurin=20
To: Igor Ya. Pavlinov=20
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: on universaliy of Phylocode
Dear Igor,
Our e-mail messages must have crossed each other. By the time =
you read this, you will have received some comments from me on your =
paper. As for your comments on the PhyloCode, I respond to your most =
specific comment below.
Dear Michel,
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".
Yes, but before, it has to become the "standard" method!
BLESSED THOSE WHO BELIEVE
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.
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.
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.
On the contrary, it does. Suppose that taxon A is defined as =
"the smallest clade that includes species B and C". Perhaps when the =
taxon is defined, species D is thought to be part of it, if the =
phylogeny is (B, (C, D)). Suppose that a later investigation yields the =
following phylogeny: (D, (B, C)). Species D is simply taken out of =
taxon A. There will always be a smallest clade that includes species B =
and C, but its contents will depend on the phylogeny. No problem!
YOUR ARGUMENTATION IS CORRECT AS MUCH AS IT APPEALS TO THE ANCESTOR OF =
A, B AND ALL ITS DESCENDANTS. BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CORRECT FORMALLY =
IF ONLY MONOPHYLY OF CLAD (B+C) DEFINES A: THE LATTER IS FALSIFIED BY =
(B(C+D)) IN WHICH (B+C) IS PARAPHYLETIC. THANKS FOR THIS DISCUSSION, NOW =
I SEE WHY ANCESTOR IS INCLUDED IN DEFINITION.
Sincerely,
Michel
--=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_+57uGG/WrIiXNbbKSLHJuQ)
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> </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 =
2:39=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: on universaliy of=20
Phylocode</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Igor,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Our =
e-mail=20
messages must have crossed each other. By the time you read =
this, you=20
will have received some comments from me on your paper. As =
for=20
your comments on the PhyloCode, I respond to your most specific =
comment=20
below.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>Dear =
Michel,</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>if you ever read my =
paper I've=20
sent you you woudl see that my somewhat sceptical position in =
respect to the=20
phylocode is caused by my "historical" view of that fates of various =
classificatory approaches. You just recall that "the new =
systematics" and=20
phenetics were dominating prior to cladistics in XX century while =
the=20
pre-phylogenetic taxonomy of XIX century was based on =
naturphilosophie. And=20
where they all are now? So, I suspect there will come time when =
cladistics=20
along with the phylocode will become =
"old-fashioned".</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Yes, =
but=20
before, it has to become the "standard" method!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#ff0000 face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>BLESSED THOSE =
WHO=20
BELIEVE<BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>It is neither bad nor =
good, it is=20
just a general law of development of any scientific discipline. And =
unity of=20
language is one of the most strong "glue" factors that make =
different=20
classificatory approaches just branches of the same biological=20
taxonomy.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>Of course, this =
provides specific=20
problems considered recently by Marc Ereshefsky: for instance =
the=20
Linnean species are not the Darwinian ones although they are =
both=20
called "species". But then we have to acknowledge that "eco-species" =
are not=20
the same as "phylo-species". Following the logic of the phylocode =
promoters,=20
we have to adopt different nomenclature to different kinds of =
species, and=20
each author, before naming his/her species properly would be =
oblidged to=20
decide first with which kind of species he/she deals =
with.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT size=3D-1>And this returns us to =
the=20
phylocode again. It is applied to monophyletic taxa which is =
excellent in=20
theory. But practice is much more diverse than it is presumd by =
any=20
law. Suppose you recognize and name a group as =
monophyletic. And=20
someone else disapprove your conclusion or disagree with your =
opinion =20
- say, just because that someone disagree with your method or a =
programm=20
employed (Farris vs Felsenstein vs Estabrook vs Swofford). What it =
may mean=20
from the phylocode standpoint? How one has to treat names of taxa =
which=20
supposed monophyletic status is falsified by other studies or is not =
acknowledged by other members of taxonomic community? Does =
phylocode =20
considers such a situation? I gues it doesn't.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><X-TAB> </X-TAB>On the=20
contrary, it does. Suppose that taxon A is defined as "the =
smallest=20
clade that includes species B and C". Perhaps when the taxon is =
defined,=20
species D is thought to be part of it, if the phylogeny is (B, (C, =
D)). =20
Suppose that a later investigation yields the following phylogeny: (D, =
(B,=20
C)). Species D is simply taken out of taxon A. There will =
always=20
be a smallest clade that includes species B and C, but its contents =
will=20
depend on the phylogeny. No problem!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#ff0000 face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>YOUR =
ARGUMENTATION IS CORRECT=20
AS MUCH AS IT APPEALS TO THE ANCESTOR OF A, B AND ALL ITS DESCENDANTS. =
BUT IT=20
DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CORRECT FORMALLY IF ONLY MONOPHYLY OF =
CLAD (B+C)=20
DEFINES A: THE LATTER IS FALSIFIED BY (B(C+D)) IN WHICH (B+C) IS =
PARAPHYLETIC.=20
THANKS FOR THIS DISCUSSION, NOW I SEE WHY ANCESTOR IS INCLUDED IN=20
DEFINITION.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> =20
</X-TAB>Sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><X-TAB> =20
</X-TAB>Michel</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_+57uGG/WrIiXNbbKSLHJuQ)--