rankless nomenclature

[Thomas Lammers]

At 09:55 AM 10/11/00 -0700, you wrote:
>         To me, it looks exactly like the proverbial "six of one, half a
>dozen of the other". In what way is the creation of new replacement names
>EVERY TIME a different phylogeny is published more stable than redefining
>the old names every time? Either way, something changes and we are all
>forced to re-learn the classification. Well, DUH! Frankly, I find it
>easier to keep track of new definitions than to keep track of ever-growing
>lists of new versus defunct names. Think of it this way: if rankless
>proponents have their way, then it is virtually inevitable, like the
>workings of a ratchet, that all the old rank names will get wiped away one
>by one and replaced, so we won't have things like "Papilionidae",
>"Nymphalidae",
>"Lycaenidae", etc. to talk about any more. I don't see that sort of
>incessant, inevitable turnover of names as an improvement. To rephrase
>your own question, "Does the rate of name replacements need to accelerate
>also?".
>         If this is what rankless taxonomy entails, I don't think it's
>solving any problems for us.

This is all true, and I would like to add the observation that the biggest
problem is our uncertainty over the phylogeny of nearly all groups of
organisms, except maybe birds and mammals.  As near as I can see in the
botanical world, most published phylogenies are absolute
houses-of-cards.  I simply have too little faith in the power of the
cladistic method to want to irrevocably hitch our system of nomenclature to
a cladogram in any sort of rigid lock-step method such as that proposed by
the PhyloCode.  Talk about feet of clay!  IF we *knew* the "correct"
phylogeny of a group, if we were privy to God's Master Cladogram, the
PhyloCode might work OK.  But in the Real World?  It simply won't work.  It
will cause far more problems than it will cure.  A great idea from a
theoretical idealistic viewpoint, but for a practicing taxonomist, a nightmare.

A cladogram is a hypothesis.  It is tested by adding new data to the
analysis, or by adding additional taxa.  Does it make sense to bind our
nomenclature to an avowed hypothesis?   As Doug rightly points out, once
the application of names is tied to explicit circumscriptions instead of
types, it is inevitable that name changes will flourish and most familiar
names will be lost.  The type method evolved for a reason: to prevent name
changes every time the circumscription of a group changed.

As it stands now, traditional nomenclature has enough "slop" in it that it
can often be unperturbed by changes in our understanding of
relationships.  Dropping or adding a taxon here or there upsets no
one.  Campanulaceae is still Campanulaceae with or without Sphenoclea and
Pentaphragma.  Under the PhyloCode, it might not.  Where in the world is
the sense in that?

Those who are in such a big toot to upset a 250-year-old applecart should
dig out Brittonia 4: 323-385 (1943) and read Camp and Gilly's proposals for
making nomenclature better reflect results from the then-current taxonomic
bandwagon, biosystematics.  Oh, you never heard of their proposals?  Well,
take a clue: where they are today is where the PhyloCode will be 10 years
from now.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous