No subject

[Dov Por]

This message  has bounced back. Here it is again:
> 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", how 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
> >