Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Thomas Lammers]

At 12:54 PM 10/12/00 -0400, you wrote:

>What is a practicing taxonomist?

To me, it is someone who describes new species, revises classifications,
publishes monographic treatments, sequences genes, constructs cladograms,
counts chromosomes, performs experimental hybridizations, examines pollen
grains under an electron microscope, keys out plants, makes herbarium
specimens, and compiles floristic data, among other things.  Someone who
*utilizes* the tools of systematics to answer questions.

I contrast this to a theoretician (maybe not the right word), someone who
*creates* the tools taxonomists use.  Folks who understand mathematics well
enough to construct phylogenetic algorithms, someone familiar enough with
classification theory to work out tests of rigor for phylogenetic analyses,
someone knowledgable enough about molecular biology to create new ways of
applying it to taxonomic problems, etc.  And folks who try to work out new
ways to do nomenclature.

I realize few folks fall entirely in the latter group.  Most theoreticians
have "practiced" taxonomy.  And I will say that they are an essential
component of systematics, that we could not make much progress without them.

At the same time, I will assert that not every new idea generated by the
theoreticians is a good one.  In my opinion, I do not think the PhyloCode
will be able to achieve its stated goals.  I think it will be a source of
confusion, not only within the taxonomic community, but in our user
audiences at large.  Do we seriously think that confusion will be reduced
by having TWO co-extant systems of nomenclature?  Just think about what
things were like a century ago when we had the American Code and the
International Code as "alternatives".  We're STILL trying to clean up the
mess THAT bad idea left behind!  What is USDA, F&WS, APHIS, TNC, etc. going
to make of this?  "Well, under the PhyloCode, this family is called ABC but
under the ICBN it's called XYZ."  Does this make ANY sense to anyone who
doesn't have a vested interest in the thing?  I understand that you and
others have put a lot of hard work into this, and would dearly love to see
it fly, but it is still a bad idea for systematics.

>Perhaps phylogenetic nomenclature does not meet your needs, Tom, but
>rank-based nomenclature does not meet mine.

I'm sorry to hear that.  But is the ICBN so fatally flawed that it cannot
be modified to be more amenable to conveying phylogenetic info?  Ken Kinman
sure seems to think so.  It makes more sense than throwing out 250 years of
experience and starting from scratch!

>   The PhyloCode will not
>replace the other codes; it will complement them, making the work of
>phylogenetic systematists a lot easier.  People who do not find it
>useful are welcome to continue using the rank-based system.

Yeah, I've heard THAT before.  Suppose I'm wrong; suppose the PhyloCode
does survive and flourish, instead of joining Camp & Gilly's biosystematic
nomenclature and the American Code in the dustbin of history?  Will we see
a time not too far off when reviewers reject a manuscript for publication
because the author refuses to utilize the PhyloCode?  Will we be told
"You're not doing science" if we swear fealty to the ICBN?  Will grant
proposals be declined because the work will not be published with a
PhyloCode-based classification?

Too many times, traditional taxonomists have opened their arms to new
ideas, told we can still do things the old way, only to be stabbed in the
back.  It's human nature to promote the new by denigrating the old.

Look at the literature.  Look at the conflicting phylogenies that are out
there. Take a case where three different genes give three different
phylogenies, and explain to me what an adherant to the PhyloCode will do
with it.

I stand by my case: Our ability to accurately infer phylogenies is
problematic.  We are not able to confidently recover the true phylogeny of
a group.  We can only construct good hypotheses subject to additional
tests.  Until such time as our confidence in the phylogenies we create
exceeds 90%, a PhyloCode is premature.  It will not reduce confusion, it
will not reduce name changes.  It will most certainly increase confusion
and increase name changes.  The supposed advantages to the system, in
conveying phylogenetic info, do not offset the harm it would do to
systematics as a whole.

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