Wiley's Classificatory Conventions

[Ken Kinman]

Walter (and Don and others),
     You are, of course, referring to the conventions introduced in Ed
Wiley's 1979 paper in Systematic Zoology.  Quoting from page 51 of The
Kinman System (1994):
  "E.O. Wiley (1979) presented a well-organized and thought-provoking set of
conventions aimed at making Linnean classification more useful and better
able to accommodate the cladistic revolution of recent years.  Our systems
agree on his Rules 1-2 and Conventions 1-2, and Conventions 8-9 could be
adopted as well.  However, we differ regarding Conventions 3-7, and the
Kinman Code has been designed to better handle these important areas.  The
author is convinced that the new coding system can produce classifications
which are less complicated, "cleaner", anagenetically more informative, more
stable, and much more useful (to systematists and non-systematists alike)."
      Most importantly, I note that Wiley's Convention 3 for phyletic
sequencing is replaced in my system by a simple code sequence (using numbers
and letters).  I do not believe that it is best to use a negative
(un-annotated) Convention (Wiley's No. 3) for indicating a positive
knowledge of sequencing.  Therefore the Kinman Code uses a positive
(explicit) alphanumeric sequence for cladistic sequencing, and it uses the
"negative" lack of code for a negative occurrence, namely lack of knowledge
(sedis mutabilis, to use Wiley's terminology).
     Of course, the Kinman System goes even further in that it allows and
codes for paraphyly as well, and adds {{markers}} to show where exgroups
have been removed (such as Aves removal from Reptilia), and thus maintains
the sister group information cladists need (and is lacking in traditional
eclectic classifications).  It is a very simple convention that allows for
paraphyletic groups at the same time it stores all the sister group
information of strictly cladist classifications.  Reptilia thus becomes
semi-paraphyletic, taking the traditional paraphyletic group adding two
appropriately-placed markers (for mammals and birds), and it is rendered
strictly monophyletic (holophyletic) in informational terms.  It so simple
and yet so useful.
     We can have our cake and eat it too.  You can take the advantages of
traditional cladistic and traditional eclectic classifications, and combine
them into one classification that meets the needs of all (and it eliminates
many of the disadvantages at the same time).   I am modifying the Kinman
Code somewhat to make it more explicit and user-friendly, but even if
another coding system would be preferable, it does show that
cladisto-eclectic classifications are possible if we work together on it.
     If we had spent the last 20-30 years cooperating, instead of bickering,
we would already have such classifications, and we wouldn't be debating a
PhyloCode, because it would be totally unnecessary.  In my view, it is
finally time to assess new possibilities of cooperation, and stop assuming
that cladistics (Hennig School) and eclectics (Mayr-Simpson-Ashlock School)
have to be mutually exclusive and forever at odds.  A combined system is
possible if we believe in it and put all this unproductive separatist energy
and debate, and productively channel it into a single cooperative
cladisto-eclectic system.
               End of rant/plea,
                           Ken Kinman
********************************************************
>From: Walter Boeger <wboeger at BIO.UFPR.BR>
>Reply-To: Walter Boeger <wboeger at BIO.UFPR.BR>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: rankless nomenclature
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:26:16 -0300
>
>Dear all,
>
>I am especially interested in the discussion on "rankless nomenclature".
>However (I may have missed something), nobody has yet mentioned the
>attempts
>(E. Wiley, for example) to express phylogeny in a classification even if
>the
>Linnean hierarchy is used.  The Linnean System, obviously,  has been used
>for a long time and any drastic change (as a completely brand new system,
>replacing the old one) may be highly deleterious.  I especially appreciate
>the comments of Richard Pyle's last message (as we say in Brasil, it had
>its
>"feet on the ground").  Well, I guess my question is, can we "adapt" the
>Linnean system to be phylogenetically informative (as Wiley's "Annoted
>Linnean Classification")?  If not, what is wrong with the previous attempts
>to do so?  Why do we have to redo it all over again with new codes?
>
>Cheers
>
>Walt
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Walter A. Boeger, Ph.D.
>Departamento de Zoologia, UFPR
>Caixa Postal 19073
>Curitiba, PR 81531-990
>Brasil
>fone:  55-41-3611765
>fax: 55-41-2662042
>ICQ: 36546488
>Netmeeting server: ils.ufv.br
>http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/mono/monos.html
>wboeger at bio.ufpr.br
>---------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.