Continued Sarcasm or New Synthesis?

[Jaakko Hyv�nen]

Ken, check out
Nixon, K.C. & Carpenter, J.M. 2000: On the other "phylogenetic
systematics". Cladistics 16:298-318. (http://www.idealibrary.com),
Lidén, M. et al. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46:735-738
or
Benton, M.  2000 Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is
Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633-648
(http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html)

for criticism of node-based nomenclature


>Tom,
>     I'd be interested to know if there is any one thing that such hard-core
>cladists find particularly dreadful (or badly thought-out) about PhyloCode?
>                        ----Ken
>********************************************************
>
>>From: Thomas DiBenedetto <TDibenedetto at DCCMC.ORG>
>>To: 'Ken Kinman' <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>, TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>>Subject: RE: Continued Sarcasm or New Synthesis?
>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:07:33 -0400
>>
>>I think there is a factor missing from the debate over the Phylo-code. We
>>see proponents of various alternative systematic philosophies bashing
>>cladists, and cladistics in general, as if the Phylocode were some
>>necessary
>>extrapolation from cladistic principles. The authors of the Phylocode
>>certainly make the case that its principles are deduced from general
>>cladistic principles, but there are many of us, who considered ourselves
>>hard core cladists, who find the Phylocode to be absolutely dreadful and
>>wrong-headed. As a result of my own personal history, I have contacts with
>>at least two of the factions of cladists who are considered by most to be
>>the most "hard-core", and amongst them, I find the prevailing opinion of
>>the
>>Phylocode to be unanimous and negative.
>>I suspect that the issues will be joined with increasing frequency and with
>>increasing heat in the months and years to come. I just wish to leave
>>everyone here with the understanding that the Phylocode should in no way be
>>considered as the prevailing view amongst cladists. There are some elements
>>of the phylocode proposals that are positive and important. Of course, the
>>use of ranks is unscientific, and has lead to some horrid "scientific"
>>analyses. And the underlying motivation of the phylocode proponenents, to
>>re-orient our nomenclature and classification with phylogenetic principles,
>>is very important and long-overdue. But other aspects of the proposal are
>>very badly thought out, and I doubt that they will find general acceptance.
>>Let the fun begin!

--
________________________________________________________________________________
Jaakko Hyvönen                          phone office    +358-(0)9-19124413
Division of Systematic Biology          phone cellular  +358-(0)50-5171184
PO Box 7                                phone home      +358-(0)9-2985258
FIN-00014 UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI        facsimile       +358-(0)9-19124456
FINLAND                                 e-mail  jaakko.hyvonen at helsinki.fi