Message 2005-05-0051: Pickett's charge

Sun, 29 May 2005 02:10:28 +0000

[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

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!