[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:24:19 -0800 (PST)
From: [unknown]
To: Phylocode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>, dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Subject: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions
[crossposted to the PhyloCode mailing list for discussuon] I had written: <<That would not be a tremendously difficult and problematic issue. I= magine that Hermann von Meyer has been dead over a century, so someone ELSE = will have to "register" the name FOR him, or do it for themselves.>> David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote: <Er... yes, of course. Where's the problem?> Imperiosity. It would be required to not only get a name published,= but to get it approved for validity by a system of people (or in fact, a _pe= rson_), whom will choose to do so only via application of the definition. Whi= le I think that a name is only really applicable if it is clearly defined, as su= ch species lack definitions in the draft PhyloCode (dPC) and thus do not get def= initions, unless you start making some real odd choices the dPC doesn't cover a= nd thus would not, upon active use, be able to "control."=20 Furthermore, that person (note the singular, as suggested by the dP= C's authors) will determine this process, priority, etc. No recommendatio= n in the current dPC Article 8 currently involves checks and balances. In the = past, problems of application of nomenclature could be handled by the struc= ture of the rules in the ICZN at the family, genus, and species levels, the l= evels which have been regarded historically as the most dynamic and "import= ant" names in biological taxonomic systems. The authorship, timing, and relegati= on of database nomenclature, for example, could become easily out of sync w= ith the publication record, simply because of this process; those who do not = follow the dPC have no worry, but those who think only those dPC names they go o= ver are "real" will have BIG issues. I might take this further, by arguing that the application of the r= egistrar and registrator require paper trails, at least digitally, but the pur= pose of these has no legitimate, simply legalistic, purpose, for the sake of publication. Their existence seems superfluous. Yet aside from this, = Art. 8 of the dPC considers (and elsewhere advocates that) names not validated = in this database are not valid, whether published or not. This leads to issue= s of synonymy, for when names ARE registered, they can cause a distruption= in the historical record and their argument of precedence as has been histor= ically recognized by the ICBN and ICZN, such as (close to home, perhaps) fin= ding its popularity warranting of *Brontosaurus* Marsh, 1879 over *Apatosaurus= * Marsh, 1877, or *crassipes* von Meyer, 1857 over *lithographica* von Meyer, = 1861. Issues of priority would either have to be rewritten, or some names, = despite their existence, simply ignored or forgotten. I have suggested, perha= ps not here, that a direct transposition of the current ICZN taxonomic Nomin= a Conservanda and such be adopted, simply to avoid this, and all names = currently held valid be considered valid by the dPC officiators. This seems to = have been met with silence. Only new names would have to undergo the registrati= on process, thereby avoiding the issue of trying to register names out o= f current sequence based on some person's personal idealism about what names ar= e better than others (on that person's OWN considerations). There is no public discussion of this issue, yet it is simply _done_, or is done by some= small group. Or should we redecide all ICZN/ICBN acts of rejection and cons= ervation? <Well, either you discuss that with her, ideally resulting in a coaut= hored publication.> I have discussed this with Dr. Clarke. The results of that discussi= on are not public, so I will not air them here. However, the issue of coauthorin= g in any case is a problematic area I touched on before: most systematists are= out there working on their own phylogenies, and many will reject the ideas of o= thers based on their personal view points. There are taxonomic "cliques" (i= n American parlance) as much as there are those who are "lone wolves" (more parl= ance, going about their own way and rejecting community efforts). That said= , there are some who gather large groups to compound ideas and form real comm= unal efforts on taxonomy, but these are the exception, not the rule. The t= endency for few specialists in research position dealing in major inter-taxon systematics (and thus those more prone to reviewing and revising such= taxonomy) tends to cause some, such as latter days' Steel or Gray, to revise sw= aths of nomenclature on their own prerogative, or Seeley, often without much = as a "by your leave" and often getting into nomenclature wars. There was in fa= ct a minor "war" between Joel Cracraft [at the AMNH] and Storrs Olson [at the Sm= ithsonian] involved in "order-based" avian systematics that eventually led to Cr= acraft in rejecting the ranks in favor of the then imminent Sibley and Alqvist,= whose work was also, while lauded, largely rejected by order-based systemat= ists, including Alan Feduccia. If even these leading researchers couldn't a= gree on the nature of systematics, how should we get them, or me and those wh= o disagree with me or I with them, into a single paper together? We need to establish the principles of the system before we start t= rying to overhaul another and simply say "here's the only one you have, I gues= s". Advocating that the old validities are valid under the new system is = one way to start clean, though it's rather dirty, but that's what happens with h= istory, just like organizing a harddrive. Today, we have a system founded on = ranks, but surprisingly, a lot of the arguments of precedence and foundation can= be found in the dPC, which honors its forbearers' insight. But while rank-base= d practice in the ICZN and ICBN are deeply entrenched, they are not so innate as= to render their removal destructive, simply by revising the elements that refer= to ranks, and allowing all suprageneric names to be establishable as clades, an= d have provisions for definitional addenda to the establishment of names, wi= ll cause more ease I think than many people realize. <My proposal is maybe 10 years -- plus some pressure so that the disc= ussion actually happens!> =2E.. <This may not be the right day to say it, but I don't think any of th= e rank-based codes can be saved... sorry for the pun.> People are human, and whatever our pure-minded motives, names have = a property value, signified by the authorship. They will fight over their proper= ty, as much as they should, since it in the end signifies their scientific acheivements and establishes their history. Many, such as Dobzhansky,= or Lyell, have been able to establish their names through works of LOGIC and ob= servation without having to resort to scientific names, but I dare say many of = us now are tied to our names and find it important to hold on them, since they u= sually indicate we will be working on those areas for decades to come. Seren= o and his former and current students today established themselves on discoveri= es that they are still working on, and this will continue. However, the discussion IS happening, in research papers, textbooks= , review papers, and so forth. It will take time, much of it hammering out wha= t the principles should or could be. In fact, after a decade of de Queiroz = and Gauthier publishing on the abandonment of ranks, we come back to rese= archers who use the Linnaean system and yet offer definitions, consider parts= of the ICZN perhaps more suggestive than enforcing, and even some parts whic= h are suggestions to be more powerful. To get the CZN to agree, of course, = is going to be HARD work, and it requires a compounding response in the biolog= ical community. This will take DECADES (yah, pessimistically). Cheers, Jaime A. Headden "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) =09 =09=09 __________________________________=20 Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.=20 http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/