Different codes - in support of the phylode

[Ken Kinman]

     I am not a botanist, but I agree with Thomas Lammers completely.  Too
many formal Latin names as it is, and phylogenies are still very fluid.  The
relationships of dicot orders in particular are notoriously difficult and
controversial (although molecular data is gradually shedding light on such
problems).  In zoology, we have similar problems with the phylogeny of
Metazoan phyla, and within the Arthropoda in particular.  To a lesser or
greater extent, there are such problems in all groups of organisms, and
there will continue to be for generations of biologists to come.
     I informally recognized the "eudicot" clade in my 1994 classification,
and I presumably always will.  But on the other hand, I see no reason to
abandon the formal classification of angiosperms into two classes, even if
monocots are cladistically embedded within dicots (a simple marker takes
care of that, and it isn't necessary to know precisely which paleoherb order
is their closest relative, the marker is easily moved and recoded).
     Below is part of my 1994 classification of angiosperms (taxon names and
coding only).  The paleoherb portion is very out-of-date, but shows where I
put the {{Liliopsidea}} marker for the "ex-group" monocots (I'm not sure,
but it's probably doubtful that monocots are still regarded as sister group
to Aristolochiales in particular).  The only change I show here is the
insertion of Order Proteales early in the eudicot phylogeny (Proteales being
one of those problematic orders that molecular data is allowing us to place
with far more accuracy).
     The point is that the formal taxon names will be largely unchanged, and
all the new information from molecular data will be reflected by shuffling
the Orders here and there when necessary, and recoding.  The "eudicot" clade
can be indicated in various informal ways.  You could use a bracket to show
it in the margin of the classification (as is often done with cladograms).
In reference to my classification below, I would call it "Magnoliopsidea
4+", i.e. Ranunculales and all the many dicot orders which follow it.  And
if you don't like emended standardized endings, simply change the -ea to -a
in the two Class names.

                 PHYLUM MAGNOLIOPHYTA
1  Magnoliopsidea (dicots)
        1  Nymphaeales
        2  Aristolochiales
        B  {{Class Liliopsidea}}
        3  Piperales
        B  Illicales
        C  Laurales
        D  Magnoliales
        4  Ranunculales
           Papaverales
           Nelumbonales
        5  Proteales
        6  Caryophyllales (and the rest of the
                eudicot orders to be reordered
                and recoded)
           ... (lots of other eudicot orders)
_a_  Liliopsidea (monocots)
        1  Acorales**
        2  Arales
           etc., ...
                         ------Ken Kinman
NOTE(**):  Acorales was not formally described in my book according to the
requirements of the ICBN, so the name Acorales officially dates from a later
work.
********************************************************

>From: Thomas Lammers <lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
>Reply-To: Thomas Lammers <lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Different codes - in support of the phylode
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:32:05 -0500
>
>At 11:04 AM 10/19/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>Botanists are already using a host of unofficial rankless non-linneaen
>>names for important clades, such as paleoherbs, eudicots, core eudicots,
>>Rosids I through III etc. Wouldn't it be better to have a formalised set
>>of rules like the Phylocode before this new name-jungle grows too dense?
>
>IMO, no.  As long as they are informal, they can come and go as our
>knowledge of phylogeny grows and changes.  I've made the argument that our
>knowledge of *any* group's phylogeny is still too fluid for codified
>names.  Such a level of knowledge demands a very casual approach to
>naming.  Once names are formalized and codified, they are
>effectively
>carved in stone.  A name validly published under a Code may fall from use
>and languish in synonymy but it NEVER GOES AWAY.
>
>I repeat my concern: our ability to correctly infer patterns of evolution
>is so imprecise and limited that any code based explicitly on phylogeny per
>force will generate many many new synonyms in a short time.
>
>Frankly, if the nomenclature governed by the PhyloCode was strictly based
>in English or other non-Latin language, or was otherwise immediately
>distinguishable to even the layman's eye as different from "scientific"
>names, my objections would cease.  If phylogenists want to codify rules
>governing how one applies names like "Eudicot" "Rosid II" and "Paleoherb",
>I have no objection whatsoever.  My opposition is largely predicated on a
>desire to avoid confusion with names governed by the ICBN, and to nip in
>the bud any future attempts to do away with traditional
>nomenclature.  Non-Latin names for clades would accomplish that.
>
>
>Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
>
>Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
>Department of Biology and Microbiology
>University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
>Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA
>
>e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
>phone:      920-424-7085
>fax:           920-424-1101
>
>Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
>biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
>                                                 -- Anonymous
_________________________________________________________________________
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.