Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Philip Cantino]

Z. Skala wrote:

>Perhaps all this discussion miss one important point: what should
>nomenclature (names) DO? In my personal opinion, names are
>here for easy *communication*, not for information storage. Storage
>of information is the job of a system (taxonomy). Hence, the
>names should unequivocally refer to "things" and be stable. The
>contents of the "things" is a matter of the taxonomy (descriptions,
>cladograms, etc.). I feel that the proponents of the PhyloCode do
>not fully agree with this distinction and here can be the root of all
>the disagreement.

I certainly agree that the main function of names is communication,
not information storage.  (Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I
favor replacing Linnaean binomials with some other form of species
name that does not attempt to include taxonomic information within
the name at the expense of stability.)   I also agree that names
should refer to "things" and be stable.  Where Zdenek and I disagree
is what those things should be.  I would like to name clades and
species, and these are the things that the PhyloCode is (or will be,
in the case of species) designed to name.  It is not clear what the
"things" are that Zdenek wants to name.  If they include
non-monophyletic higher taxa, then I agree that traditional
nomenclature is better suited than the PhyloCode to name them.

Those who want to name non-monophyletic higher taxa should not try to
use the PhyloCode to do so.  However, for those who want to name
clades, I recommend that you experiment with phylogenetic
nomenclature in the context of a group you are intimately familiar
with and decide for yourself which system works best.  With each
system, can you name all of the clades you want to name without being
forced to name taxa you don't accept (e.g., paraphyletic groups or
poorly supported clades)?  Can you name the clades you want to name
without changing the names of previously named clades or of species?
Can you name clades one at a time as you discover them without having
to develop a whole classification?  It was these sorts of practical
advantages that initially sold me on phylogenetic nomenclature.  We
can argue philosophical issues until we are blue in the face, but
ultimately it will be practicality that will determine whether
phylogenetic nomenclature becomes widely used or falls by the wayside.

Phil


Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979
U.S.A.

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130
e-mail: cantino at ohio.edu