rankless nomenclature

[Una Smith]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Curtis Clark wrote:

>                                                                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?

Which are the bad boys and girls, the "Linneans" or the "PhyloCodists"?
It seems to me everyone wants a structured way of naming clades;  we're
arguing over which structure is best.


>        why do any of you begrudge a group of phylogeneticists coming up
>with an unambiguous way to name clades?

I'm not sure it is in fact unambiguous.  It *sounds* clear enough, to
say "clade Foo = all descendants of the common ancestor of Bar and Bat"
but whether or not it *is* clear depends on the definitions of Bar and
Bad.  Ultimately, it comes down to a question of typification, doesn't
it?

BTW, I do not consider myself an opponent of the PhyloCode, and I hope
not to be labeled as such by its proponents.

        Una Smith               una.smith at yale.edu

        Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
        Yale University
        New Haven, CT  06520-8106