Hands off genera (please)

[Richard Pyle]

Ken Kinman wrote:

>       But since it seems to be coming, like it not, I would urge
> Philip and
> colleagues to (at the very least) seriously consider leaving generic names
> (as well as species names) out of the "beta-testing" of this new
> Code.  The
> generic level is where most of the damage and confusion will occur, so
> wouldn't it be advisable to at least leave genera out of this experiment
> until you really understand the long term implications of what you are
> starting?  This would be the responsible and prudent thing to do
> if you are
> really concerned about the long term stability of systematic nomenclature
> and classification.

Although it may seem from my posts thus far that I am a proponent of the
PhyloCode system, I have to say that I fully agree with Ken here.  Most of
the "stability" issues in current taxonomy focus on the placement of species
names within genera (and perhaps to a lesser extent, rank-shifts between
species and infraspecific ranking).  If PhyloCode can initially exclude
Species, it can also initially exclude Genera, out of respect for the
"binomial" nature of the Linnaean codes. Unlike many other taxonomists, I
don't see the rank of Genus as any more "artificial" than the rank of
species, so I don't see the same "fundamental" distinction at the species
level as others do.  If PhyloCode is to undergo a "beta-test" period after
official commencement on 1 January 200n, I would suggest (like Ken) that it
begin by treating Genera as specifiers, rather than as clades.  This might
seem counterintuitive to the PhyloCode drafters (for a variety of reasons),
but if PhyloCode is to survive, it must capture the support of the taxonomic
community at large, and it seems that to do so, a very cautious approach has
merit.  Treating genera as specifiers rather than clades still leaves ample
opportunity for using and "ground-truthing" the system at higher levels,
while reducing the potential damage that could result if the concerns
expressed by Ken, Thomas, and others do indeed prove warranted.

This is my fourth (and therefore last) post of the day.  Barring any
specific questions or misconceptions about my points, I intend this also to
be my last post on this thread.  As I mentioned before, I'm in the business
of discovering new species; not elucidating phylogenies.  I seriously doubt
that I will ever use something like PhyloCode during the rest of my
professional career.  My main interest in seeing it (or something like it)
come to fruition is, by way of an already-used analogy, to build a second
sandbox for the 'other gang' to play in, so that the 'rest' of us can have
our sandbox back all to ourselves. Keeping a single sandbox for all of us
seems too crowded to me.

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."