Fwd: cladistics & linguistics & PhyloCode

[Philip Cantino]

Ken Kinman wrote:


>        The naming of newly discovered species (and the genera we group them
>in) should continue as long as we keep finding them.  But the number of
>potential hierarchical levels (needed to formally show all the
>relationships) is enormous (whether you name them or not), and we should be
>thankful the Linnean system has held the strict cladists back (somewhat)
>from their natural tendency to formally name groups at more and more of
>these levels.  The PhyloCode will probably cut them loose (perhaps even
>encourage a premature priority race), and we will end up with so many higher
>rank taxa that the utility of classifications will be severely compromised.

The fallacy in this argument is the assumption that every named clade
must be included in a classification.  This gets back to the
nomenclature vs taxonomy thread that started this whole discussion
several weeks ago.  The PhyloCode only governs the naming of clades
(and eventually species); it does not dictate which named taxa must
be included in a classification.

Classifications are designed for specific purposes.  The
classification used in an identification manual for the plants of
Ohio (if it used phylogenetic nomenclature) would not include clades
that do not occur in Ohio.  The author of such a manual would also be
free to choose which clades to include in the classification (see my
posting of 10/16 for elaboration on this point) and might well omit
many small clades even though names for them have been published.  By
analogy, the classifications in today's floras are often restricted
to families, genera, and species, omitting subfamilies, tribes,
subgenera, etc. for the sake of simplicity, even though published
names for these taxa exist.




>       The Linnean system should have been modified decades ago to decouple
>(as much as practical) nomenclature from classificatory information.
>Classifications using something like the Kinman System are flexible enough
>to grow and store increasing amounts of information, but in a way that keeps
>the complex nomenclature from getting so out of control.  PhyloCode will go
>the other way, sweeping away such checks and balances, and we'll really have
>a mess.

The last sentence is simply not true.  The PhyloCode separates
nomenclature from classification more fully than the current
"Linnaean" system does. Ranking (a classificatory mechanism) does not
affect the spelling or priority of names under the PhyloCode, whereas
it does under the IC_N codes, and species names under the PhyloCode
will not include classificatory information as they do under the
current system.



>    Some cladists may actually enjoy the confusion, just as some
>lawyers enjoy the confusion in the out-of-balance legal system.

Please provide some evidence if you are going to make assertions like
this.  I don't know any cladists who enjoy confusion.

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