rankless nomenclature

[Sigfrid Ingrisch]

dear all,

by introducing a second competing classification as the phylocode we would
give up an important feature of the present Linnaean classification, its
universality that everybody all over the world uses the same name for the
same organism (Babylon is not far from today).

I think none of the cladists is interested or willing to do the laborous,
painful task to redefine all the 1,000,000,000(s) of species and analyse
their phygogentic position to each other (with few exceptions as hominids) -
please correct me if I am wrong. Moreover, in practice, a binominal naming
system is always superior to a uninominal system to give all the
1,000,000,000(s) of taxa *unique* names. Just one example,
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html gives a list of six
mammals alone the have the specific epithet "americanus". We could easely
add dozens of arthropod taxa which have the specific epithet "americana/us"
too, not to forget plants ...

Thus for the genus and species level we do best adhere to the current
Linnaean classification as the only naming system.

For higher categories we could give the phylocode a try. There are differing
proposals for classification already in textbooks; why not add another. Time
will tell which is the more stable system.

Just my two cents,
Sigfrid Ingrisch

----------------------------
Dr. Sigfrid Ingrisch
Eichendorffweg 4
D-34385 Bad Karlshafen
Tel. +49/5672-2314
e-mail: sigfrid.ingrisch at planet-interkom.de
----------------------------