rankless nomenclature

[Doug Yanega]

Phil Cantino wrote:

> For
>example, a name that is valid under the ICZN but does not have a
>published phylogenetic definition cannot be an accepted name under
>the PhyloCode.

Okay, I realize you can't respond again today, but does the above *really*
not strike you or anyone else as absurd? Just think of what a vanishingly
small percentage of the > 1 million names presently valid under the ICZN
actually have a "published phylogenetic definition," and then tell me,
honestly, that you believe that phylogeneticists (which, you will perhaps
be amused to know, is what I would be, were I actively revising any
speciose taxa) will find the time and energy to RE-publish all of the
remaining names along with phylogenies. The vast majority of extant
arthropod names will NEVER be accepted under the PhyloCode, even if the
vertebrate names get taken care of in a few decades. You are, by
definition, making it impossible for the PhyloCode to ever replace the
Linnaean system, since there are many more Linnaean-named taxa than can
ever be placed into phylogenies.

Yikes,


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