rankless nomenclature

[Dov Por]

Zdenek is right.
We are mixing two different things. the existing Codes serve the basic trade
to denominate  species and genera , for the universal use, without any
pretentions to  present a big phylogenetic system. Please leave ICZN and
ICBN untouched in order to function in education, taxonomic research,
environmental studies, etc..
The PhyloCode  is a presumptious attempt to codify hypotheses. The panorama
of the hypotheses is changing all the time and this is good, since this is
the way science works. See for example the changes in our perception of  the
birds, the best-known "clade", hosw it has  has changed recently  and is
still changing ( see Longisquama !!).
I sincerely believe that we are loosing precious time and energy in the
cladistic discussions, while out there there is still a whole animal and
vegetal world  ( both recent and fossil) to be discovered and described ( in
Linnean way!) . Soon, much of it might be irremediably lost  and together
with it many new  and as yet unimaginable hypotheses of bifurcations !
Dov Por
----- Original Message -----
From: Zdenek Skala <Zdenek.Skala at INCOMA.CZ>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:39 AM
Subject: rankless nomenclature


> Richard Pyle wrote:
> > Does anyone really believe that phylogenetic
> > analysis will prove to be a passing fad? That it will disappear
> > altogether eventually?
>
> I do.
> Phylogenetic analysis can never reach safe grounds - simply
> because it deals with a past, which is inherently inobservable as
> such. Hence, the resulting trees are severely dependent on our
> untestable hypotheses about the phylogeny course. Simple
> example to illustrate: All current types of phylogeny reconstruction
> assume that phylogeny was generally splitting and include
> reticulations only where really obvious. What if the general
> phylogeny pattern is reticulation? - I do not think so, but *we have
> no tool to decide*! Of course, the picture of phylogeny would
> dramatically change, our methods would change etc.; moreover,
> one can imagine many such different hypotheses. Thus, again -
> phylogenetic systematics of any kind cannot be really  complete in
> the strict sense, we never reach "90% confidence about
> phylogeny"; we will even never know which % of confidence is
> reached. This is intelectually inacceptable on the long run and, in
> my opinion, can lead to the search for the more testable taxonomic
> principles - some kind of "new phenetics". The study of phylogeny
> will certainly continue, but will no longer form a ground for
> taxonomy.
>
> To promote nomenclatural stability, we should *decouple* it with
> ANY ideology behind as far as possible and make it compatible
> with different taxonomic practices. Linne's ideas about the natural
> order were quite different from the current ones but his nomeclature
> principles work largely unchanged. The purpose of the Code is to
> set principles of naming things, not to decide what these things
> are. In my opinion, we should make the code open to different
> possible taxonomic ideologies and the current status of (e.g.) ICBN
> is close to this desire - it only should (and can I believe) proceed
> further. The basic reason why not to accept PhyloCode is that it
> goes in the opposite direction.
> Best!
> Zdenek
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> ] Zdenek Skala
> ] e-mail:
> ] skala at incoma.cz
>