PhyloCode names

[Barry Roth]

--- Zdenìk Skála <skala at incoma.cz> wrote:

> Well, once again: "Linnaean nomenclature" (LN) is
> *not* coupled with any taxonomic practice, so it of
> course can be used for the cladistic systematics -

The ICZN wisely does not seek to dictate how
taxonomists choose, for instance, to delimit the
membership of a species.  But it does in effect
declare that there are names of "the family-group,"
"the genus-group," and "the species-group," and by
building in this system of formal ranks it does,
indeed, couple nomenclature with taxonomic practice.

> [...] The PhyloCode, on the other hand, has a
limited
> scope (to manipulate cladistic information) by
> definition. Hence, it *is* a second-class citizen
> compared to universal tools like LN.

I see no reason why names proposed under the PhyloCode
could not be used for any other purpose, particularly
if in many cases (as both Phil Cantino and I
contemplate) they are homeomorphic with non-PhyloCode
names designating taxa of approximately the same
scope.  PhyloCode names could appear in a list of Red
Species or Furry Species or Species that Live in Trees
in Ohio the same as any other name.

I think it is interesting that Zdenìk in this post and
Thomas in a subsequent post find it acceptable for the
names of taxa with phylogenetic definitions to have a
second-class status.  But because I sense that this
corner of the thread may be trending in the direction
of "more heat than light," I will leave it at that.

Barry Roth

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/