Message 2005-06-0002: FW: Pickett's charge

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:40 +0000

[Previous by date - [unknown]]
[Next by date - species under PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Felicidades!!! nbnbr]

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:40 +0000
Subject: FW: Pickett's charge

How will a species under PhyloCode be defined. If humans and Chimpanzees for instance could produce offspring would they be labeled as one species under PhyloCode? Under the most limited definition of a species it is a group of similar looking organisms that usually mate or form a single culture if their is asexual reproduction for this group. SubSpecies is equivalent to race under this system as it refers to isolation that produces differences that like a family cast on a deserted island would exhibit slight variations but would still be considered human. Yisrael Asper
Pittsburgh PA

----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
To:      David Marjanovic <>
Subject: Pickett's charge
Date:    Sun, 29 May 2005 02:10:28 +0000

There will only be species? 
Yisrael Asper
P.S. I assume the fact that I am neutral about PhyloCode being adopted doesn't 
mean I have to leave the site. I just felt I had to confess this dreadful truth 
about myself. 

> Now that my internet connection works again...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> 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 polyphyly: 
> > a conference report from the First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> > Meeting
> > Kurt M. Pickett
> > Cladistics, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 79  - February 2005
> Pickett _obviously_ never read the PhyloCode, so he was quite confused when 
> the speakers at the Meeting presupposed the knowledge of it. It got me angry 
> enough that I've written a reply which I seriously intend to submit for 
> publication on Sunday. It's a pity that -- if it will be accepted, of 
> course! -- my first publication would not be about research, but... someone 
> has to state certain things in clear words...!
> > Abstract
> > A report from the first International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting 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 
> > abandonment of (1) non-monophyletic taxa, (2) ranks, and (3) types.
> For example, he hasn't understood the difference between specifiers and 
> types. They're like boundary stratotypes and body stratotypes in geology. 
> The difference couldn't be greater.
> > "... 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 "fix" 
> > this problem with the current Codes, but now it is clear that the 
> > PhyloCode will be agnostic on the issue of monophyly just as our standing 
> > nomenclatural rules are. [...]"
> Except, that is, if one _reads_ the PhyloCode.
> > "... the most "revolutionary" recommendation offeredwhich we are told is 
> > only logically consistent with the philosophy that separates 
> > classification from phylogenetic systematizaionis that ranks are best 
> > abandoned (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Cantino et al., 1997). 
> > Yet, at the PhyloCode meeting, de Queiroz said that the PhyloCode is "not 
> > to be confused with rank-free taxonomy". While "rank-based" taxonomy is 
> > "the antithesis of the PhyloCode, 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."
> I just say "Article 3". Oh, and "peer review?".
> >
> > "[...] But in the case of the PhyloCode, in doing this supporters have 
> > surely ostracized their few core devotees who accept the arguments that 
> > ranks are of the nonevolutionary "classification" and not of darwinian 
> > "systematization", [...]"
> The PhyloCode is the end of classification. Seemingly this thought is so 
> radical that it didn't occur to Pickett. Hennig has replaced systematics 
> with phylogenetics, and the PhyloCode will replace Linnaean nomenclature 
> with phylogenetic nomenclature. Why should we continue to ask how to 
> translate a phylogenetic tree into a classification? Phylogenetic 
> nomenclature takes the tree _as is_ and ties labels to it. Nobody needs 
> classification anymore. We can, and should, simply drop it.
> Sorry for preaching to the choir... I got carried away... :-) 


Feedback to <> is welcome!