Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Doug Yanega]

Phil Cantino wrote:

>I hope it is clear from what I said above that the PhyloCode does NOT
>require new replacement names when a new phylogeny is published.
>This will occasionally occur when someone intentionally writes a very
>restrictive definition, but in most cases it will not.  Whoever the
>"proponent" of rankless nomenclature was who gave Doug Yanega this
>idea either does not understand how the system will work or didn't
>communicate it clearly.

Then, as you suggest (and as I had allowed for), the fellow giving the
sales pitch was not necessarily following the PhyloCode, but some other
vision of what rankless taxonomy entails. Good to have at least that much
cleared up. Nonetheless, it is a judgment call on your part, admittedly, as
to whether "most" cases will involve renaming or not - in my own
experience, the wildly different cladograms different researchers often
generate for the same taxa suggests it's going to be hard to define things
flexibly enough to accommodate for all the possible permutations. Again,
maybe this doesn't happen much with vertebrate cladograms, but I'm not
familiar with that literature.

>It is possible that some people will take advantage of rankless
>nomenclature to publish excessive numbers of names, but the draft
>PhyloCode discourages this in several ways.  First of all, peer
>review is a requirement for publication (Art. 4.2); in this respect,
>the PhyloCode is more conservative than any of the currently
>functioning codes.  Secondly, the PhyloCode contains recommendations
>that are intended to discourage people from naming lots and lots of
>clades.  For example, Rec. 9B: "Establishment of names for poorly
>supported clades should be done with careful consideration of
>possible nomenclatural consequences if the phylogenetic hypothesis
>turns out to be incorrect.  It may frequently be advisable to use
>only informal names for poorly supported clades."  Recommendation 9C:
>"Conversion of preexisting names to clade names should be done with a
>thorough knowledge of the group concerned, including its taxonomic
>and nomenclatural history and previously used diagnostic features.
>Wholesale conversion of preexisting names by authors who have not
>worked on the systematics of the groups concerned is strongly
>discouraged."

Maybe I'm just not as convinced that things that are listed as
recommendations and not *requirements* are going to be followed by
everyone. On the other hand, if the "peer review" requirement is
maintained, and the reviewers are always people following the PhyloCode, it
*might* alleviate some worries on that account. As it stands, it seems (for
example) that half the amateur lepidopterists on the planet live and die in
the hopes of publishing new names, and will go to any lengths to do so;
butterfly nomenclature and taxonomy is, understandably, in constant flux as
a result. If you REALLY think you can rein in folks like that, then more
power to you.
        On the other hand, if Richard Pyle's comments are correct, the
existence of the PhyloCode won't have any impact on gov't agencies, field
guides, journals, etc. - and people can continue with vanity publication to
establish valid names, since the PhyloCode will not be replacing the ICZN
except among phylogeneticists.

So, this brings me to a question which no one has asked yet:

Let's assume for a moment that both codes are up and running, side by side.
A PhyloCode taxonomist publishes a paper in which new names are created. IS
IT POSSIBLE that these new names can, on occasion, be valid under the
PhyloCode and NOT valid under the ICZN? If there is any way this can
happen, what then is to prevent someone else from taking those same names
and taxon groupings and publishing them again in a manner compliant with
ICZN rules, thereby establishing them as if he/she were the original
author? (We recently saw a mess like this with the electronic publication
of some new wood roach species; when the authors realized no one accepted
their names, they published the exact same work in a journal so the names
are now valid. If they'd worked on butterflies, it wouldn't have been
surprising if someone plagiarized them and beaten them to it - and it would
have been allowed by the ICZN rules, though it certainly would've required
non-peer-reviewed publishing)
        Along with this, if Linnaean taxonomists adapt an original
PhyloCode name and alter its meaning in a way the PhyloCode would not
permit, can't this lead to confusion in the future, or do PhyloCoders
ignore actions taken by ICZNers that aren't consistent with their rules?
        In essence, won't having two codes with different rules lead to
peculiar loopholes and conflicts in certain cases where they intersect?
Basically I'm just wondering about how many and how serious the points of
friction may be. How thoroughly have people analyzed this aspect of things?

Peace,


Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
           http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82