PhyloCode and "the real world"

[MAGarland at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/13/00 8:19:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Philip Cantino
writes:

> The question is not which
>  system one has "allegiance" to but which system serves one's needs
>  best in the context of a particular kind of research.  When I do
>  floristic studies of local natural areas (and a considerable amount
>  of my research time is spent on unpublished floristic studies of this
>  sort), I use traditional nomenclature--and probably will continue to
>  do so even after the PhyloCode is implemented.

Reading this thread, I wondered what future floras and faunas would look like
under the PhyloCode.  (Thinking from my ignorant user's perspective).  I
supposed we would have keys to clades, but couldn't figure out how you'd
choose the clades to key to.  The ones you feel like making a key for?  The
ones that are phenetically distinct?  Which clades would you present in a
textbook?

Then, if you were making an inventory of "species" (whoops, maybe not), how
would you arrange your lists?  Alphabetically?  By clades?  By which clades?

But from the comment above I see that there will be a PhyloZone (tm) within
which the PhyloCode *will* be used, and everywhere else, where it will *not*
be used.  Phew!  That's a relief.  But wait--who sets the boundary of the
PhyloZone?

Ignorantly,

Mark A. Garland (L)--or L superscript if you prefer
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 2500
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
U.S.A.
mark.garland at dep.state.fl.us
magarland at aol.com