Fwd: Re: PhyloCode prefix/suffix?

[Thomas Lammers]

At 08:26 AM 10/25/00 -0400, Phil Cantino wrote:

>The problem I will have in bringing this issue up again is that I
>argued so vehemently for a mandatory symbol at the workshop that
>began the PhyloCode project that everyone knows I feel strongly about
>it.  Some may therefore not take seriously my assertion that people
>outside the advisory group support my view.  Nonetheless, it is worth
>a try.  As I recall, the initial vote on this issue was close, and
>perhaps some minds can be changed.

Phil, I am really heartened that you are willing to go back into the fray
with this, and I am glad you are willing to try to convince the group of
the wisdom of this.  (*And* I'm glad you like the exclamation point -- it
really does look pretty hip and jazzy!)  I think it is in everyone's best
interest.  We really do not need another schism in systematics.  Folks who
are so inclined should be able to operate under a PhyloCode ... as long as
it is clear to all parties involved, both inside and outside systematics,
that this *IS* a different way of doing things; as long as confusion is
avoided.   If traditionalists feel that they are once again being
infiltrated and their ways of doing things usurped, if they feel that here
is another excuse for someone to tell them "You're not doing science unless
you do it my way," it will stiffen resistance and lead to major problems
for our discipline.

So I applaud your willingness to bring this matter up with the PhyloCode
group.  Impress upon them the risk they run in not doing this.  Show them
the Taxacom posts.  Get them to strive for a system that will not only
allow them to express their research results, but will avoid creating
confusion in our user publics and dissension and animosity in our community.

I suspect that the reason an entirely new (albeit complementary) Code was
drafted was because all parties realized that if these ideas were put forth
as proposals to amend the ICBN, they would NEVER get anywhere near a
majority of support at an International Botanical Congress (ditto for
however the other codes are anmended).  This fact alone should impress upon
your fellow PhyloCodists the wisdom of not presenting their ideas in a
manner that threatens tradition.  "All that has gone before is crap, now
WE'RE doing it RIGHT!" -- this sort of rhetoric may attract newspaper and
magazine coverage, but it's no way to win over your brother-and-sister
systematists.  (I know no one has actually ever said that about anything --
but read betweeen the lines of some of the articles reporting these things
down through the years, and that's the impression you get, whether its
flavonoids, cladistics, DNA sequencing, or the PhyloCode.)

And I have to say, irrespective of what I think of PhyloCode, that Phil has
conducted himself throughout this discourse in an exemplary fashion.  He
has been a rational, courteous proponent for the proposal, answering all
the numerous concerns raised in a level, thoughtful manner.  I've learned a
lot from this very long thread.   I hope the others in the PhyloCode group
realize what a fine service Phil is performing for them here.  If I were
sure that everyone in favor of the PhyloCode were as reasonable as Phil, I
wouldn't be so damn worried about its implementation.


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