[Previous by date - Re: Mention of the Phylocode]
[Next by date - use of vernacular names]
[Previous by subject - RE: Mention of the Phylocode]
[Next by subject - RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:02:52 -0700
From: [unknown]
To: 'PML' <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: Mention of the Phylocode
> > Still, this article leads me to wonder if it isn't, finally, the = call to > > reform the ICZN. I was struck by a comment in the 1999 Code which= stated > the > > recognition of the need to revise the Code in the near future to > incorporate > > the concept of monophyly [...] >=20 > How is this supposed to work, apart from a rule against polyphyleti= c taxa > (which AFAIK does currently not exist)? Abandoning paraphyletic tax= a would > mean to reduce the Linnaean system to the mere _existence_ of ranks= above > the genus level (as the vertebrate palaeontologist Michael Benton a= lready > does it, putting genera next to infraclasses in his classifications= ). Let me be clear that I am not saying *we* are called to revise the IC= ZN (so I will not speculate as to how I might go about it), but that I suspe= ct the ICZN is about to receive another overhaul. And I think there are any = number of things they can do to bring the Code into line with current thinki= ng about monophyly; I do not think there are any holy cows, so anything = is potentially fair game. Most biologists will follow whatever changes a= re made without thinking twice about it. Will most of us find the changes acceptable? Probably not. Will the changes be sufficient to appeal to= those who recognize that the Code is outdated, but are still delaying judgm= ent on the PhyloCode? There's the rub.=20 Jason S. Anderson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Anatomy College of Veterinary Medicine Western University of Health Sciences 309 E. Second St. Pomona, CA 91766 909-469-5537 FAX 909-469-5635 janderson@westernu.edu