rankless nomenclature

[Ken Kinman]

Philip, Zdenek, Barry, and others:
     Although Zdenek's reaction below is somewhat understandable, I think he
is being overly pessimistic about cladistic "analysis", just as I think
Philip Cantino is overly optimistic about the limited way in which his
PhyloCode will be used for cladistic "classifications" and nomenclature.
If there were a moderate PhyloCzar (like Philip) initially limiting a
PhyloZone, I might actually be a little less worried about PhyloCode
generating confusion.  I expressed my concerns about generic names in
particular in last night's post.
      I am rather optimistic about cladistic "analysis", which is no doubt
here to stay, although different groups of cladists are still vigorously
debating how such analyses are best done (which I think is a healthy process
if it doesn't spill over into classification and nomenclature).  But having
said that, we are still in the early-to-mid stages of these debates, and
many cladists do have too much confidence at times and overextrapolate, and
if this spills over into a codified formal nomenclature, it would be very
detrimental.  Not just the instability it would cause, but also because
these difficulties in strictly cladistic "classification and nomenclature"
would make even more scientists distrustful of cladistic "analysis".
      Phylogeny will always "form a ground for taxonomy", but if we move the
cladistic pendulum swing back a little, I think everyone will see that
classification should not be based *solely* on phylogeny.  Just like Darwin,
Mayr, my former teacher Peter Ashlock, and many others, I believe that some
measure of "divergence" (Darwin called it "modification") must be
incorporated into classifications to make them as useful and natural as
possible.   Barry Roth rightly points out that many traditional eclectic
classifications have been too inexplicit, and you could add terms like
nebulous and even untestable.  Cladistic analysis increases testability,
predictiveness, clarity, etc., and that should be encouraged.  But the
automatic conversion of cladograms into classifications (purely cladogenesis
with no anagenesis) has taken it too far, and I think the time has
definitely come to explore other options.
      I don't want to see a return of any of the authoritarian eclecticism
which Curtis Clark has recalled from his younger days.  But on the other
hand, I feel the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and the other
extreme of authoritarian cladism is now beginning to become a problem in
some quarters.  The Kinman System was my attempt to stop this pendulum
swing, and hopefully convince people that a unified cooperative approach is
possible, and 30 years of a divisive war between eclecticists and cladists
has been very unproductive for quite some time.
     Some elements of the PhyloCode could be used to forge such a unified
approach (just as I used some of Ed Wiley's ideas in my own system).  But I
believe a separate parallel PhyloCode will cause more problems than it
solves.  I do agree with Zdenek's last statement below, that to promote
stability, we should *decouple* classification and nomenclature from any one
ideology as much as possible, thus making it "compatible with different
taxonomic practices."  The Kinman System is an example of one way in which
this can be done, but I am continually open to ways to improve it, or even
consider a different unified cladisto-eclectic approach if it is presented.
But it needs to combine the predictivity and explicitness of cladistics with
the practicality and hierarchical stability which new eclectic conventions
can  provide.
          ----Running late, Bye, Ken Kinman
******************************************************
>Richard Pyle wrote:
> > Does anyone really believe that phylogenetic analysis will prove to be a
>passing fad? That it will disappear altogether eventually?

>Zdenek Skala responded (in part):
>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....
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.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.