[Previous by date - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Next by date - Pickett's charge]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Next by subject - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 22:20:34 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted
Now that my internet connection works again... ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: <cej@gli.cas.cz> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:28 PM > Hello, > could anyone coomment the paper: > > The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even pol= yphyly:=20 > a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomen= clature=20 > Meeting > Kurt M. Pickett > Cladistics, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 79 - February 2005 Pickett _obviously_ never read the PhyloCode, so he was quite confuse= d when=20 the speakers at the Meeting presupposed the knowledge of it. It got m= e angry=20 enough that I've written a reply which I seriously intend to submit f= or=20 publication on Sunday. It's a pity that -- if it will be accepted, of= =20 course! -- my first publication would not be about research, but... s= omeone=20 has to state certain things in clear words...! > Abstract > A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Mee= ting is=20 > presented. The meeting revealed that the PhyloCode, once implemente= d, will=20 > itself not require adherence to the three major tenets of philosoph= y that=20 > proponents have claimed required its creation. These include the= =20 > abandonment of (1) non-monophyletic taxa, (2) ranks, and (3) types. For example, he hasn't understood the difference between specifiers a= nd=20 types. They're like boundary stratotypes and body stratotypes in geol= ogy.=20 The difference couldn't be greater. > "... But now, the new code that we are told will bring the "Darwini= an=20 > Revolution" to systematics has adopted a permissive stance not only= on=20 > paraphyly, but also on polyphyly. ... The PhyloCode is supposed to= "fix"=20 > this problem with the current Codes, but now it is clear that the= =20 > PhyloCode will be agnostic on the issue of monophyly just as our st= anding=20 > nomenclatural rules are. [...]" Except, that is, if one _reads_ the PhyloCode. > "... the most "revolutionary" recommendation offeredwhich we are to= ld is=20 > only logically consistent with the philosophy that separates=20 > classification from phylogenetic systematizaionis that ranks are be= st=20 > abandoned (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al., 199= 7).=20 > Yet, at the PhyloCode meeting, de Queiroz said that the PhyloCode i= s "not=20 > to be confused with rank-free taxonomy". While "rank-based" taxonom= y is=20 > "the antithesis of the PhyloCode, ranks are allowed in the PhyloCod= e". So=20 > ranks, which are not systematizations, but classifications, which a= re both=20 > pre- and nonevolutionary (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cant= ino et=20 > al., 1997), and which hinder the "evolutionization of taxonomy" (de= =20 > Queiroz, 1997) will now be a part of the "Darwinian Revolution" in= =20 > taxonomy." I just say "Article 3". Oh, and "peer review?". > > "[...] But in the case of the PhyloCode, in doing this supporters h= ave=20 > surely ostracized their few core devotees who accept the arguments = that=20 > ranks are of the nonevolutionary "classification" and not of darwin= ian=20 > "systematization", [...]" The PhyloCode is the end of classification. Seemingly this thought is= so=20 radical that it didn't occur to Pickett. Hennig has replaced systemat= ics=20 with phylogenetics, and the PhyloCode will replace Linnaean nomenclat= ure=20 with phylogenetic nomenclature. Why should we continue to ask how to= =20 translate a phylogenetic tree into a classification? Phylogenetic= =20 nomenclature takes the tree _as is_ and ties labels to it. Nobody nee= ds=20 classification anymore. We can, and should, simply drop it. Sorry for preaching to the choir... I got carried away... :-)=20