[Previous by date - [unknown]]
[Next by date - species under PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - FORIGNER IS NEEDED (BUSINESS PROPOSAL)]
[Next by subject - Felicidades!!! nbnbr]
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:40 +0000
From: yisraelasper@comcast.net
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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 yisraelasper@comcst.net ---------------------- Forwarded Message: --------------------- From: yisraelasper@comcast.net To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu 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: <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 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... :-)