[Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi John - I feel honoured that you have broken your recent silence to respond to something I said! So let me answer you: Cladistics (and molecular methods) are both bandwagons in the following sense: they are both useful tools, but each is just one tool in the toolbox, and they are tools intended to improve taxonomy. So far, so good. The problem is when they shift the emphasis away from the very taxonomy that they were intended to improve, and become "ends in themselves". The result is that less actual taxonomy gets done because an inappropriately high amount of funding goes to the bandwagons. Some journals will go so far as to reject taxonomic papers that don't contain phylogenetic trees, even if those trees mean absolutely nothing in the context of what the author was trying to do. Taxonomy gets pushed to one side, and undervalued. Some Universities (not far from here!) will spend many millions extending their facilities for molecular biology, for example, when they don't employ any taxonomists! The right balance just seems so elusive ...

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 3:53 a.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

If cladistics is a bandwagon, what exactly are the methodological
principles that Stephen would promote as an alternative? Also, I fail
(and I may be to blame) to understand how cladistic requires a dismissal
of taxonomy.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 12:13 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

I interpreted Barry's remarks to be more than a little tongue in cheek
... I don't think he is advocating  PhyloCodism! But there certainly are
those that like to jump on the latest bandwagons - first cladistics, now
molecular ... taxonomy is just so 1758! [tongue firmly in cheek!]

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
[kennethkinman at webtv.net]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 5:34 p.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

Dear All,
       This is so typical of PhyloCodists.  So many of them seem to
delight in undermining the ICZN and ICBN at every opportunity.  At the
same time that they ignore provisions of the traditional Codes, they
participate in promoting a PhyloCode which is even more restrictive and
illogical in the long term.
      Quite frankly their mentality increasingly reminds me of those on
Wall Street who recently almost totally wrecked the world's economy.
Yet the PhyloCodists are still trying to push full-steam ahead, just as
Wall Streeters seem to be so soon returning to their own brand of
self-centered, short-term thinking.  NOTE: not surprisingly, New York
City also seems to be a center that promotes PhyloCodist propaganda.
New York City (like Washington D.C.) seems increasingly detached from
both the natural world and "normal" people.
     During the French Revolution, some people like this got their heads
literally cut off for being so out of touch with reality.  Obviously I
would not advocate literally cutting their heads off, but they seem to
need to few kicks in the pants to remind them that the whole world is
not particularly pleased with their narrow view of where taxonomy should
be heading.  If it weren't for their own infighting, PhyloCode would
have been implemented about 2001, not 2010 or later.  Their internal
debates sort of remind me of the U.S. Congress.  The legalistic
strait-jacket of PhyloCode would easily make ICBN and ICZN look like the
good old days in comparison.
****************************************************
Barry wrote:
I see the family name is registered in ZooBank and that the authors
followed Phylocode protocols in defining their clade-based taxon.
Perhaps when that code takes effect, all will be moot. One can then
choose one's code.



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here