Part 2 (was: rankless nomenclature)

[Curtis Clark]

Thanks, Richard, from one of the "dozen", for a very well-reasoned approach.

At 05:06 AM 10/14/00, Richard Pyle wrote:
>This, I believe, represents the crux of our disagreement. Why can't we have
>two different systems of nomenclature, when they serve different functions?

* IUPAC chemical names vs. all the other systems.
* AOU bird names vs. Linnaean vs. vernacular.
* Tzeltal plant names vs. Linnaean (or substitute any other indigenous name
system).
* Aren't there two different ways of naming stars?

And I'm sure the list could go on.

One other point that hasn't been mentioned: the IC_N codes become much less
prescriptive at the higher levels, to the extent that, at least in "plants"
s. lat., there is a basic conservatism in the face of a system in which
anyone can propose anything. This conservatism works directly against the
teaching of higher-level diversity, either in the lower-division "plant
kingdoms" type courses such as the one I teach, or in more advanced courses
about the major clades of life. Phylocode would actually bring stability
(as contrasted with mere conservatism) to that realm. How nice it would be
if such things as (Charophyceae + land plants), (vascular plants), (seed
plants), and (eudicots) had widely accepted, rank-free names.


--
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