PhyloCode and "the real world"

[Richard Pyle]

Mark Garland wrote:

> 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?

I see your concern, but my (equally ignorant) user's perspective is that
PhyloCode wouldn't be used for such purposes -- at least not until after
most of us are "retired" (professionally or physiologically).  I see the
classic Linnaean system more as a tool that reflects the human need to draw
lines between things (e.g., lines that delineate species boundaries among
populations; lines between various hierarchical groupings of critters &
weeds, etc.).  It is this need that is served by the pragmatic aspects of
taxonomy, such as keys and checklists in textbooks.  This need is also
served by stability of names (if, for none of the other valid reasons, at
least to allow our printed literature to extent its useful life). PhyloCode,
on the other hand, seems to me to be more of a tool specifically used to map
evolutionary relationships among organisms -- which I see as a distinct and
separate endeavor. Part of the trouble I think we're all having on this
issue is that many assume that the Linnaean classification serves this
purpose admirably as well (or could be tweaked to do so).  Maybe this is the
better path to salvation.  However, I think that even staunch phylogenetic
systematists would agree that our ability to confidently map evolutionary
history in all but a tiny fraction of the diversity of life on Earth is in
its infancy -- and won't reach puberty for decades (even from an optimist's
perspective like mine).  Consequently, I fear that a single system of
nomenclature that attempts to serve dual purposes will lead to more
confusion and unnecessary bickering than separating the two systems.

I think Curtis Clark nailed it when he said:

"I don't see Phylocode replacing the other codes, ever (if anything, the
others will fall into disuse in a century or so)..."

I believe that PhyloCode (or something like it) represents the long-term
future of taxonomy (with emphasis on "long-term").  It represents a system
where science is happy to have a classification scheme that specifically
represents evolutionary history; in a world where the evolutionary
relationships among the majority of life are confidently resolved (i.e.,
with stability). This is a world that doesn't need keys or textbooks, and
checklists are "live" and based on real-time, alpha-level data
(confidently-identified specimens). That world seems foreign or impossible
to us now, just as a world of computers, space-travel, and long-distant
powered human flight for the masses probably seemed impossible to people
only a century ago. Eventually, however, it will come (provided that we, or
the rest of life on the planet, hasn't gone extinct by then); and at that
time, the Linnaean system will no longer be needed and will probably, as
Curtis suggests, fall into disuse.

> 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?

I would imagine that the respective codes set the boundary of the
"PhyloZone".  The boundary is set on the PhyloCode side by requirement for
centralized registration (a concept that, incidentally, would also serve the
Linnaean system as well).  The boundary is set on the Linnaean side by the
IC_N codes (assuming, of course, that names proposed under PhyloCode somehow
explicitly do not meet the criteria for status under the Linnaean codes).
Things get a bit foggy above the level of family, however, because that's
where we lose our Linnaean-code boundaries. Maybe that is the realm in which
we should focus our debates -- not at the level of families, genera, and
species, where the focus seems to be now.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
"The views expressed are the author's, and not necessarily those of Bishop
Museum."