rankless nomenclature

[Curtis Clark]

At 12:59 AM 10/17/00, Zdenek Skala wrote:
>On the other hand - Mendeelev's table is a good example of how
>good phenetic system works: (1) it is based on observable features
>instead of untestable hypotheses; (2) it decouples names (like
>sulphur or prometheum) from the position of the element in the
>system.

The periodic table is not phenetic, it is based on specific properties of
the elements that turned out to result from the properties of electron
orbitals. It is as hypothesis-based as any classification in science. A
phenetic system would include other features of the elements, such as their
phase at room temperature, and in fact classifications prior to the
periodic table were largely phenetic (if I were a chemist, I could perhaps
elaborate). The periodic table is a natural classification, because it
expresses inherent properties of the elements, subject to discovery. There
are currently no competing systems, because every chemist recognizes that
the table reflects a fundamental reality. Biologists could hope to do as well.

I think, though, that the key word in your response is "untestable". I get
the impression that you believe hypotheses of kinship to be untestable. If
in fact you are correct, and if it is also true that observed organic
diversity is the result of evolution, then systematics is not and can never
be a science, since its foundation cannot be expressed as testable
hypotheses. I can't accept that, and I have to say that I hope in this case
that I'm right and you're wrong.


--
Curtis Clark                 http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                 jcclark at csupomona.edu