Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Thomas Lammers]

>At 05:05 PM 10/13/00 -0700, Curtis Clark wrote:
>
>>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
>>upwith an unambiguous way to name clades?
>
>I said it before.  Because to promote the new, we must denigrate the
>old.  I fear a time when I submit a manuscript and "peer" review rejects
>it because I have not sworn allegience to the PhyloCode, when I am told
>that if I do not adhere to its dictates, I am "not doing science."  Look
>honestly at the past 40 years and tell me I have absolutely nothing to
>fear in this direction.  If phylogeneticists merely want to play in their
>own sandbox, I would have no problem.  But I've seen this before.  Once
>the thing is in motion, they'll be in my sandbox, telling *me* how to
>play.  Look at our recent past and tell me I'm wrong.

Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous