[Previous by date - Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Next by date - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pickett's charge]
[Next by subject - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:35:53 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: cej@gli.cas.cz, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to=
=20
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to=
=20
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
--Boundary_(ID_uKmumwgEAvIcnM/oguYiMw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Two comments have been prepared on Pickett's report, one by Laurin et=
al.
and one by me. Both have recently been submitted for publication. I=
n my
comment, I point out that the developers of the PhyloCode have not ab=
andoned
the only principle that was ever fundamental to distinguishing phylog=
enetic
nomenclature from the rank-based alternative, and that Pickett's crit=
icisms
result from confusing taxonomy and nomenclature.=20
=20
Kevin=20
=20
>>><cej@gli.cas.cz> 05/13 9:28 am >>>=20
=20
Hello,=20
=20
could anyone coomment the paper:=20
=20
=20
=20
The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even polyp=
hyly: a
conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclat=
ure
Meeting=20
=20
Kurt M. Pickett =20
=20
Cladistics, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 79 - February 2005=20
=20
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.000=
48.x=20
=20
Abstract=20
=20
A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeti=
ng is
presented. The meeting revealed that the PhyloCode, once implemented,=
will
itself not require adherence to the three major tenets of philosophy =
that
proponents have claimed required its creation. These include the aban=
donment
of (1) non-monophyletic taxa, (2) ranks, and (3) types.=20
=20
=20
Besides some invectives, the paper presents some unexpected quotation=
s, or
interpretations of them. I would like to know your opinion. I include=
some
of them below.=20
=20
Best regards,=20
=20
Peter A. Cejchan,=20
=20
palaeontologist.=20
=20
=20
=2E.. when the PhyloCode is viewed clearly, it is easily shown that i=
ts
current form deviates sharply from the arguments that have advanced i=
ts
creation. The central tenets of that argument have been that: (1) tax=
onomic
regulations should require monophyletic taxa, (2) taxonomic regulatio=
ns
should be rankless, and (3) as typification is an anachronistic desce=
ndant
of Aristotilean essentialism, types must be abandoned. On each of the=
se
points, PhyloCode proponents have either reversed or severely relaxed=
their
position.=20
=20
=20
Now under the PhyloCode stating the references of taxon names in term=
s of
common descent is general enough to include methods of stating refere=
nces of
taxon names in terms of symplesiomorphy and parallelismsnot only in t=
erms of
common descent. This undermines more than a decade of argumentation t=
hat the
Zoological and Botanical Codes' permission of non-monophyletic taxa i=
s
anathema in an evolutionary science (de Queiroz, 1988; de Queiroz and
Gauthier, 1990; Cantino et al., 1997).=20
=20
=20
=2E.. But now, the new code that we are told will bring the Darwinian
Revolution to systematics has adopted a permissive stance not only on
paraphyly, but also on polyphyly. ... The PhyloCode is supposed to f=
ix this
problem with the current Codes, but now it is clear that the PhyloCod=
e will
be agnostic on the issue of monophyly just as our standing nomenclatu=
ral
rules are. Does this mean the PhyloCode is abandoning its raison d'et=
rethe
insistence that taxonomy must be strictly phylogenetic? Apparently, t=
he
answer is yes.=20
=20
=20
=2E.. the most revolutionary recommendation offeredwhich we are told =
is only
logically consistent with the philosophy that separates classificatio=
n from
phylogenetic systematizaionis that ranks are best abandoned (de Queir=
oz and
Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al., 1997). Yet, at the PhyloCode me=
eting,
de Queiroz said that the PhyloCode is not to be confused with rank-fr=
ee
taxonomy. While rank-based taxonomy is the antithesis of the PhyloCod=
e,
ranks are allowed in the PhyloCode. So ranks, which are not
systematizations, but classifications, which are both pre- and
nonevolutionary (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al.,=
1997),
and which hinder the evolutionization of taxonomy (de Queiroz, 1997) =
will
now be a part of the Darwinian Revolution in taxonomy.=20
=20
=20
=2E.. The architects of the PhyloCode have reversed their positions o=
n the
three main points of contention that they have articulated for some 1=
5
yearsnamely that taxonomy must be a monophyletic, rankless, system th=
at
rejects the type concept. Why have they done this? Perhaps it is an a=
ttempt
to be everything to everyoneand in so doing invite an exodus from the
current Codes to a new scheme. Perhaps they have been swayed by cogen=
t
arguments, as any honest scientists should. I do not fault them for t=
his.
When new information, or a better argument, comes to light, thinking =
people
should change their position. Indeed, these actions are admirable. Bu=
t in
the case of the PhyloCode, in doing this supporters have surely ostra=
cized
their few core devotees who accept the arguments that ranks are of th=
e
nonevolutionary classification and not of darwinian systematization, =
that
types are essentialist, and that monophyly should be per force used. =
This
justified acquiescence has rendered the entire effort moot, as the pr=
oposed
PhyloCode now fails to uphold hardly an inkling of the essence of the
philosophy behind it.=20
=20
=20
--Boundary_(ID_uKmumwgEAvIcnM/oguYiMw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-description: HTML
<html>
<head>
<style type=3D3D"text/css">
<!--
body { font-variant: normal; margin-top: 4px; line-height: no=
rmal; =3D
margin-bottom: 1px; margin-right: 4px; margin-left: 4px }
-->
</style>
=3D20
</head>
<body style=3D3D"margin-top: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-left: 4=
px; =3D
margin-bottom: 1px">
<DIV>
Two comments have been prepared on Pickett's report, on=
e by =3D
Laurin et al. and one by me. Both have recently been submitted =
for =3D
publication. In my comment, I point out that the developers=
of =3D
the PhyloCode have not abandoned the only principle that was ever =
=3D
fundamental to distinguishing phylogenetic nomenclature from the rank=
-based=3D
alternative, and that Pickett's criticisms result from confu=
sing =3D
taxonomy and nomenclature.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
Kevin
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> >>><cej@gli.cas.cz> 05/13 9:28 am >>=
;>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Hello,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> could anyone coomment the paper:
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>  
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, =
=3D
ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First =
=3D
International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Kurt M. Pickett 
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Cladistics, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 79  - =
=3D
February 2005
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1096-=
0031.2=3D
004.00048.x
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Abstract
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomen=
clatur=3D
e Meeting is presented. The meeting revealed that the PhyloCode, =
once =3D
implemented, will itself not require adherence to the three major=
=3D
tenets of philosophy that proponents have claimed required its creati=
on. =3D
These include the abandonment of (1) non-monophyletic taxa=
4; =3D
(2) ranks, and (3) types.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Besides some invectives, the paper presents some =
=3D
unexpected quotations, or interpretations of them. I would like t=
o =3D
know your opinion. I include some of them below.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Best regards,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Peter A. Cejchan,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> palaeontologist.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "... when the PhyloCode is viewed clearly, it i=
s =3D
easily shown that its current form deviates sharply from the argument=
s =3D
that have advanced its creation. The central tenets of that argument =
have =3D
been that: (1) taxonomic regulations should require monophyle=
tic =3D
taxa, (2) taxonomic regulations should be rankless, a=
nd =3D
(3) as typification is an anachronistic descendant of Aristot=
ilean =3D
essentialism, types must be abandoned. On each of these points=
4; =3D
PhyloCode proponents have either reversed or severely relaxed their =
=3D
position."
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "Now under the PhyloCode "stating the referenc=
es of =3D
taxon names in terms of common descent" is general enough to inc=
lude =3D
methods of stating references of taxon names in terms of symplesiomor=
phy =3D
and parallelismsnot only in terms of common descent. This undermines =
more =3D
than a decade of argumentation that the Zoological and Botanical Code=
s'=3D
permission of non-monophyletic taxa is anathema in an evolutionary =
=3D
science (de Queiroz, 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, =
=3D
1990; Cantino et al., 1997)."
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "... But now, the new code that we are told wil=
l =3D
bring the "Darwinian Revolution" to systematics has adopted=
a =3D
permissive stance not only on paraphyly, but also on polyphyly.&#=
160;&n=3D
bsp;... The PhyloCode is supposed to "fix" this problem wit=
h the =3D
current Codes, but now it is clear that the PhyloCode will be agn=
ostic =3D
on the issue of monophyly just as our standing nomenclatural rules ar=
e. =3D
Does this mean the PhyloCode is abandoning its raison d'etrethe =
=3D
insistence that taxonomy must be strictly "phylogenetic?&quo=
t; =3D
Apparently, the answer is "yes.""
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "... the most "revolutionary" recommendat=
ion =3D
offeredwhich we are told is only logically consistent with the philos=
ophy =3D
that separates classification from phylogenetic systematizaionis that=
=3D
ranks are best abandoned (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, =
=3D
1994; Cantino et al., 1997). Yet, at the PhyloCode =
=3D
meeting, de Queiroz said that the PhyloCode is "not to be =
=3D
confused with rank-free taxonomy". While "rank-based" =
=3D
taxonomy is "the antithesis of the PhyloCode, ranks are allo=
wed =3D
in the PhyloCode". So ranks, which are not systematizations&=
#44; =3D
but classifications, which are both pre- and nonevolutionary (=
;de =3D
Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al., =
=3D
1997), and which hinder the "evolutionization of taxonom=
y"=3D
; (de Queiroz, 1997) will now be a part of the "Darw=
inian =3D
Revolution" in taxonomy."
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> "... The architects of the PhyloCode have reversed =
their =3D
positions on the three main points of contention that they have artic=
ulated=3D
for some 15 yearsnamely that taxonomy must be a monophyletic, =
=3D
rankless, system that rejects the type concept. Why have they don=
e =3D
this? Perhaps it is an attempt to be everything to everyoneand in=
so =3D
doing invite an exodus from the current Codes to a new scheme. Perhap=
s =3D
they have been swayed by cogent arguments, as any honest scientis=
ts =3D
should. I do not fault them for this. When new information, or a =
=3D
better argument, comes to light, thinking people should chang=
e =3D
their position. Indeed, these actions are admirable. But in the c=
ase =3D
of the PhyloCode, in doing this supporters have surely ostracized=
=3D
their few core devotees who accept the arguments that ranks are of th=
e =3D
nonevolutionary "classification" and not of darwinian "=
;syste=3D
matization", that types are essentialist, and that monop=
hyly =3D
should be per force used. This justified acquiescence has rendered th=
e =3D
entire effort moot, as the proposed PhyloCode now fails to uphold=
=3D
hardly an inkling of the essence of the philosophy behind it."
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_uKmumwgEAvIcnM/oguYiMw)--