[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Next by date - Re: Registration]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:10:00 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other
--Boundary_(ID_E67i6E2ogH9HTq5R8dg8vQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" ; format=3D"flowed"
Karl Magnacca wrote:
>
>I suspect it's still more than half. The PhyloCode seems to appeal =
to
>three groups of systematists: paleontologists, who genuinely have
>problems with the Linnean naming system; theoreticians who just disl=
ike
>ranks; and people with an unbearable, uncontrollable urge to name
>*every* *single* clade they discover, and once they get past
>infrasubtribes can't think of any more ranks. I haven't seen much
>outside of vertebrate taxonomy aside from that done by the hardcore
>original PhyloCoders, and I have yet to meet a non-systematist who
>thinks being unable to sort species by exclusive groups (which is to
>say, being unable to know they're exclusive without an intimate
>knowledge of phylogenetics) is a good idea.
>
Well, I don't fit into any of these categories. I favor phylogenetic=
=20
nomenclature because I want to be able to give stable names to clades=
=20
(not every clade--just the well supported ones that there is reason=
=20
to communicate about) without having to develop a whole=20
classification and/or rename other clades. The 1998 paper by Hibbett=
=20
and Donoghue (Mycologia 90:347-356) provides a good discussion of=
=20
this problem with rank-based nomenclature.
I also want to be able to name the few well supported clades in=20
groups with poor phylogenetic resolution without having to name=20
groups that are probably paraphyletic. The negative side of being=
=20
able to assign species to mutually exclusive groups (i.e., genera in=
=20
the current system) is that every species has to belong to a genus.=
=20
The mandatory nature of the genus requires that one accept either=
=20
paraphyletic genera or (often many and/or marginally distinct)=20
monotypic genera in situations where the phylogenetic resolution is=
=20
poor. For an illustration of this problem, see my paper in=20
Systematic Botany 23: 369-386 [1999]).
Phil
--=20
Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Associate 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
--Boundary_(ID_E67i6E2ogH9HTq5R8dg8vQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=3D"us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their
Correspondenc</title></head><body>
<div>Karl Magnacca wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><br>
I suspect it's still more than half. The PhyloCode seems to
appeal to<br>
three groups of systematists: paleontologists, who genuinely have<br>
problems with the Linnean naming system; theoreticians who just
dislike<br>
ranks; and people with an unbearable, uncontrollable urge to name<br>
*every* *single* clade they discover, and once they get past<br>
infrasubtribes can't think of any more ranks. I haven't seen
much<br>
outside of vertebrate taxonomy aside from that done by the
hardcore<br>
original PhyloCoders, and I have yet to meet a non-systematist who<br=
>
thinks being unable to sort species by exclusive groups (which is
to<br>
say, being unable to know they're exclusive without an
intimate</blockquote>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>knowledge of phylogenetics) is a good
idea.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Well, I don't fit into any of these categories. I favor
phylogenetic nomenclature because I want to be able to give stable
names to clades (not every clade--just the well supported ones that
there is reason to communicate about) without having to develop a
whole classification and/or rename other clades. The 1998 paper
by Hibbett and Donoghue<font face=3D"Lucida Grande" size=3D"-4"
color=3D"#000000"> (Mycologia 90:347-356)</font> provides a good
discussion of this problem with rank-based nomenclature. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I also want to be able to name the few well supported clades in
groups with poor phylogenetic resolution without having to name group=
s
that are probably paraphyletic. The negative side of being able
to assign species to mutually exclusive groups (i.e., genera in the
current system) is that every species has to belong to a genus.
The mandatory nature of the genus requires that one accept either
paraphyletic genera or (often many and/or marginally distinct)
monotypic genera in situations where the phylogenetic resolution is
poor. For an illustration of this problem, see my paper in
Systematic Botany 23: 369-386 [1999]).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Phil</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--=20
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>Philip D. Cantino<br>
Professor and Associate Chair<br>
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology<br>
Ohio University<br>
Athens, OH 45701-2979<br>
U.S.A.<br>
<br>
Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126<br>
Fax: (740) 593-1130<br>
e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu</div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_E67i6E2ogH9HTq5R8dg8vQ)--