[Taxacom] Codes of Nomenclature

[Kenneth Kinman]

Curtis,
     I should have known.  Such a "ParaphyloCode" would be the extreme
opposite of the other extreme (PhyloCode).  Frankly that is just a
strawman argument.  This extreme opposite would clearly be just as bad
(if not more so).  What we need is a middle-ground approach, which not
only works well with the existing Codes of Nomenclature, but also avoids
any extreme whatsoever (whether it be PhyloCode or your tongue-in-cheek
ParaPhyloCode).  Extreme paraphylophobia vs. extreme paraphylophilia.
What kind of choice is that?                   
     In truth, I believe the major innovations in life should be used to
not only to mark the base of clades, but also to occasionally truncate
some clades to mark the base of yet another major clade that evolved
from that mother clade.  Truncating a Kingdom Prokaryota to separate it
from the clade containing four eukaryotic Kingdoms is a perfect example.
Why would you try to defend either extreme when a moderate approach is
available?  
            --------Ken Kinman             

-----------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark wrote: 
On 2009-04-06 19:58, Kenneth Kinman wrote: 
>      I'm not sure if you are finally agreeing with me or >just
teasing? 
I don't think your classifications are useful, but I was suggesting that
Richard might, since they seem to meet his aims. 
> In other words, a 
> "Paraphylocode" would mostly likely be just a smoke screen for
"PhyloCode". 

You misunderstand. The "paraphylocode" I propose would consist of
nothing but grade taxa, delimited by key innovations. It would be to
grades as phylocode is to clades. I disagree with grade-based
classification, but I have suggested a way to make it rigorous, if
anyone were interested, which it seems no one is, because all of you who
support grade-based groups seem content to mix them willy-nilly with
clades.