[Previous by date - RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Previous by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:06:31 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: knm5@cornell.edu
Cc: List PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=
Dr. Magnacca,
As someone who follows both sets of rules ("Linnean" and PhyloCode), =
I=20
could not disagree with you more, except that it IS "more than half."=
My=20
guess is, more like 95-99% of the natural history community still use=
s the=20
traditional codes. However, I disagree with your categorization of=
=20
PhyloCode advocates. Yes, there are "theoreticians" among us, but mos=
t of=20
these same "theoreticians" are practicing scientists who produce prim=
ary=20
data on a regular basis (or who work with students who do). Of the en=
tire=20
PhyloCode community, I can name only ONE person who has ever subscrib=
ed to=20
or enacted a policy of "naming every node," and this appears to stem =
=66rom=20
his participation in the movement to construct a fully described taxo=
nomy=20
under the LINNAEAN rules (thus, as you said, having supersubinfrafami=
lies=20
and the like)! As for paleontologists, I know a large number who actu=
ally=20
have no problem with the traditional systems. Actually, they very muc=
h do,=20
they just don't realize it. However, since paleontology accounts for =
99%+=20
of the history of life, I am at a loss to see why the method of namin=
g life=20
should not conform to problems paleontologists face.
I have seen the principles of phylogenetic nomenclature applied widel=
y (if=20
not deeply) outside vertebrates (see the abstracts for the Paris meet=
ing).=20
I have met a large number of non-systmeatists, and non-scientists, wh=
o find=20
phylogenetic nomenclature very sensible and easy to understand, and a=
=20
beneficial improvement on traditional practice. In my experience, the=
real=20
problem is not with non-systematists, it is with natural historians w=
ho=20
were indoctrinated under the traditional system. Test how thoroughly =
they=20
have thought through the mattter; instead of asking them why we shoul=
d=20
group species using phylogeny, ask them "by what means, by what prima=
ry=20
observations, by what testable method ARE you sorting your species?" =
See if=20
they can answer...
Jon
At 09:26 PM 9/9/04, knm5@cornell.edu wrote:
>On 9 Sep 2004 at 18:06, Jaime A. Headden wrote:
> > One could say (as above) that this is essentially the same prob=
lem.
> > Linnaean taxonomy would attempt to use the clades named in a hier=
archical
> > setting, and simply apply mandated ranks to each ... it would lik=
ely be
> > inescapable ... there ARE Linnaean taxonomists out there [...]
>
>...and we're laughing our asses off reading this discussion. Like t=
he
>species problem, it sounds like an attempt to hack together a way to
>make it work where the original system doesn't really fit.
>
> > [...] more than half of biology being comprised of those that fol=
low
> > such a system in their nomenclature.
>
>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.
>
>Karl
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>Karl Magnacca
>NPS Inventory & Monitoring Program
>PO Box 11, Hawaii Natl. Park, HI 96718
>808-985-6073
>
>"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stu=
pid
>are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." --Bertrand Russ=
ell