[Taxacom] species names for sale.

[Ken Kinman]

Holy cow,
    Sorry my use of the word speciose caused such controversy.    Next time 
I'll say species-rich and just avoid the ruckus.

     However, as for the terms monophyletic and monophyly, I certainly 
understand the irritation that Thomas feels.  That is why I almost always 
use the term holophyletic (and parenthetically add the phrase "strictly 
monophyletic" for those who haven't been exposed to the term holophyletic).  
The word "monophyletic" alone is unfortunately no longer precise in my 
opinion, so that is why I either do not use it at all or qualify it with the 
qualifier "strictly".

     If the strict cladists had simply adopted Peter Ashlock's very sensible 
and precise term "holophyly" back in 1972, we wouldn't have this problem.  
But frankly, this is just one of hundreds of semantic problems that strict 
cladism has just begun to cause, and with PhyloCode the problems are just 
going to escalate.  And Ashlock's idea of precision was actually useful, 
whereas that of PhyloCodists very often reminds me of legalistic squirming 
and obfuscation along the lines of "it depends on what your definition of 
the word "is" is.  Strict cladists are soon going to have a reputation akin 
to that of politicians.
    ------ Ken Kinman

*********************************
>From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] species names for sale.
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:01:25 -0800
>
>On 2007-01-26 06:56, Thomas G. Lammers wrote:
> > I think that's a
> > specious argument, and frankly rather condescending.
>
>How so, when I hold myself to the same standard?
>
> > Again, I am not aware
> > of any rule that forbids the existence of synonyms in language.  Even in
> > scientific writing, it is often desirable  to avoid using the same word
> > over and over and over.  Being able to describe a group as speciose
> > sometimes and species-rich at others is useful, to avoid unnecessary
> > repetition.
>
>This I find specious. It would be the same as using "monophyletic" and
>"holophyletic" in the same article, just for variety, and making the
>reader wonder whether they are synonyms or not (and of course they might
>or might not be, depending on who's writing). English is a wonderfully
>rich language for most uses, but it seems to me that scientists have to
>be more precise.
>
>When I googled for references for my original post, I entered
>
>     speciose specious
>
>and returned a number of articles where both terms were used to mean
>"species-rich". I assume this was the result of inconsistent compliance
>with the suggestions of spell-checkers, but it certainly did avoid using
>the same word over and over.
>
> > Furthermore, I think there is something to be said for the
> > functional simplicity of a single word over a hyphenated compound.
>
>In general, I agree, but then "r u" is easier to write than "are you",
>and "homoplasic" is a letter shorter than "homoplastic"
>
> > And in any event, coining a new word or pressing an obsolete one into a 
>new
> > usage is nowhere near as confusing and disruptive as intentionally
> > redefining a well known and widely used term like "monophyly" ...
>
>Well-known and widely used, perhaps. Well-defined, I would contest. I
>remember trying to explain G. G. Simpson's definition to undergraduates...
>
>
>--
>Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
>Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
>Professor, Biological Sciences
>
>_______________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo – buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06