rankless nomenclature

[Curtis Clark]

I have to admit, I'm puzzled. Perhaps it's because there were some who
proposed Phylocode as a near-term replacement for the existing codes.
Perhaps hackles were already up from Biocode and registration. Maybe it's
because Phylocode names might sound or look like ICBN/ICZN names. But *why
is it* that some phylogeneticists want to have a structured way of naming
clades, so that they all know that they are talking about the same thing,
and suddenly they are the bad boys and girls of systematics? I admit to not
having read the most recent version (I downloaded it today), but I've been
to symposia, and the basic premise makes perfect sense. I don't see
Phylocode replacing the other codes, ever (if anything, the others will
fall into disuse in a century or so), and there are still serious issues
with species, and the last time I looked, typification was still a bit
muddy, but why do any of you begrudge a group of phylogeneticists coming up
with an unambiguous way to name clades?

--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu