[Previous by date - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Next by date - Re: Pickett's charge]
[Previous by subject - Phylogenetic Taxonomy of Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropod=]
[Next by subject - Pickett's paper comments wanted]
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 02:10:28 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Pickett's charge
There will only be species?=20 Yisrael Asper P.S. I assume the fact that I am neutral about PhyloCode being adopte= d doesn't mean I have to leave the site. I just felt I had to confess= this dreadful truth about myself.=20 > Now that my internet connection works again... >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <cej@gli.cas.cz> > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:28 PM >=20 > > Hello, > > could anyone coomment the paper: > > > > The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even p= olyphyly:=20 > > a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nom= enclature=20 > > Meeting > > Kurt M. Pickett > > Cladistics, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 79 - February 2005 >=20 > Pickett _obviously_ never read the PhyloCode, so he was quite confu= sed when=20 > the speakers at the Meeting presupposed the knowledge of it. It got= me angry=20 > enough that I've written a reply which I seriously intend to submit= for=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...= someone=20 > has to state certain things in clear words...! >=20 > > Abstract > > A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomenclature M= eeting is=20 > > presented. The meeting revealed that the PhyloCode, once implemen= ted, will=20 > > itself not require adherence to the three major tenets of philoso= phy that=20 > > proponents have claimed required its creation. These include the= =20 > > abandonment of (1) non-monophyletic taxa, (2) ranks, and (3) type= s. >=20 > For example, he hasn't understood the difference between specifiers= and=20 > types. They're like boundary stratotypes and body stratotypes in ge= ology.=20 > The difference couldn't be greater. >=20 > > "... But now, the new code that we are told will bring the "Darwi= nian=20 > > Revolution" to systematics has adopted a permissive stance not on= ly 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 = standing=20 > > nomenclatural rules are. [...]" >=20 > Except, that is, if one _reads_ the PhyloCode. >=20 > > "... the most "revolutionary" recommendation offeredwhich we are = told is=20 > > only logically consistent with the philosophy that separates=20 > > classification from phylogenetic systematizaionis that ranks are = best=20 > > abandoned (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al., 1= 997).=20 > > Yet, at the PhyloCode meeting, de Queiroz said that the PhyloCode= is "not=20 > > to be confused with rank-free taxonomy". While "rank-based" taxon= omy is=20 > > "the antithesis of the PhyloCode, ranks are allowed in the PhyloC= ode". So=20 > > ranks, which are not systematizations, but classifications, which= are both=20 > > pre- and nonevolutionary (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Ca= ntino et=20 > > al., 1997), and which hinder the "evolutionization of taxonomy" (= de=20 > > Queiroz, 1997) will now be a part of the "Darwinian Revolution" i= n=20 > > taxonomy." >=20 > I just say "Article 3". Oh, and "peer review?". >=20 > > > > "[...] But in the case of the PhyloCode, in doing this supporters= have=20 > > surely ostracized their few core devotees who accept the argument= s that=20 > > ranks are of the nonevolutionary "classification" and not of darw= inian=20 > > "systematization", [...]" >=20 > The PhyloCode is the end of classification. Seemingly this thought = is so=20 > radical that it didn't occur to Pickett. Hennig has replaced system= atics=20 > with phylogenetics, and the PhyloCode will replace Linnaean nomencl= ature=20 > with phylogenetic nomenclature. Why should we continue to ask how t= o=20 > translate a phylogenetic tree into a classification? Phylogenetic= =20 > nomenclature takes the tree _as is_ and ties labels to it. Nobody n= eeds=20 > classification anymore. We can, and should, simply drop it. >=20 > Sorry for preaching to the choir... I got carried away... :-)=20