[Taxacom] Phylocode vs Linnean nomenclature, again.

[John Grehan]

Here's the kicker - 

"Their idea is to replace the Linnaean system with something called
"PhyloCode." Under this system, life forms are ranked by shared
ancestors and Darwinian principles -- in other words by their branch on
the molecular family tree."

So it's less about names than the imposition of the molecular tree as
the final authority on phylogeny.

John Grehan


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of ICZN-EM
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:42 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Phylocode vs Linnean nomenclature, again.

FYI, a debate at Yale this very afternoon!(The newspaper article below
was brought to my attention by a sharp-eyed Commissioner, but strangely
it wasn't advertised on Taxacom or the ICZN listservers ;-)  It might be
fun to have a first-hand report, if any Taxacomers happen to be
attending.

If you are feeling in the mood to revisit this issue, you might enjoy a
(re)read of Gary Nelson's talk from a decade ago:
http://www.systass.org/archive/events-archive/2001/phylocode-debate.shtm
l

What's in a name? Lots for the newly discovered

By Nancy Burton (AFP) - 1 day ago
http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/14/what%E2%80%99s-in-a-name-lots-for-the-new
ly-discovered.html

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut - The nearly three century old method for naming
newly discovered nature will face a rebellion this Friday at Yale
University.

The topic is not just some dusty debate in the halls of academia.

Adventurous scientists who capture previously unknown fish, birds and
other creatures and others who work with fossils and microorganisms say
they have an increasing problem in assigning accurate names to their
subjects.

James Prosek, a naturalist, author and artist, realized while working on
a book called "Trout: An Illustrated History" that traditional
nomenclature for living things is increasingly unaligned with scientific
knowledge.

Genetic research was upending common understandings about the trout he
caught with his handmade flies.

For example, he had caught brook trout native to the Connecticut streams
where he fished as a child, rainbow trout common in the US west and
brown trout of European origin.

All three were called "trout" even though the brook trout was
genetically more akin to Arctic char, rainbow trout more akin to Pacific
salmon and brown trout to Atlantic salmon.

"Technically, it was no longer correct even to call the book I was
working on 'Trout,'" Prosek said.

On Friday, Prosek will join evolutionary biologists and other thinkers
from Yale and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC at Yale's
Whitney Humanities Center for a symposium titled "Naming Nature: A
conversation on the nature, uses and limitations of biological
taxonomies."

The controversial idea at the forum is that it could be time to overturn
the widely used naming system developed by Swedish botanist Carl
Linnaeus 275 years ago.

The Linnaean system divides the natural world into neat ranks and gives
species joint Latin names, such as Homo sapiens for humans, with
groupings based on physical similarity.

The reformists at the Yale conference, including Yale geology professor
Jacques Gauthier, evolutionary biologist Michael Donoghue, and
Smithsonian zoologist Kevin de Queiroz, say the Linnaean system has had
its day.

"The Linnaean system is simply not up to the task of handling the sheer
amount of information we're amassing about diversity," Donoghue said.

Their idea is to replace the Linnaean system with something called
"PhyloCode." Under this system, life forms are ranked by shared
ancestors and Darwinian principles -- in other words by their branch on
the molecular family tree.

Donoghue and his colleagues have already converted the Yale Herbarium's
plant collection from the Linnaean system to PhyloCode.

Converting from one system to the other generally does not require a
name change, Donoghue said, except to correct a name to reflect new
knowledge of evolutionary relationships.

"The goal is to apply the same names in ways that make more sense,"
added De Queiroz, who gave the example of the termite as presenting a
different outcome under the PhyloCode than the traditional approach.

In a published essay, De Queiroz noted that termites have recently been
determined to descend from roaches.

Under the pre-evolution Linnaean system, he wrote, "because roaches and
termites were considered mutually exclusive and ranked as orders, it's
been proposed that termites be demoted in rank to a family of roaches"
to take into account the new knowledge.

However, to make that simple change, he wrote, the Linnaean system
dictates that "the name of the group of termites be changed (from
Isoptera to Termitidae) and the name Termitidae change its reference
from a subgroup of termites to the group of all termites -- even though
the hypothesized composition of both of these groups has remained
unchanged."

"And that's just the tip of the iceberg, because now all the former
termite families have to be demoted in rank to subfamilies, and all of
the former termite sub-families have to be demoted in rank to tribes,
etc, and all of these changes in rank necessitate changes in the names
of the taxa that they designate.

"With examples such as this in mind, it's hard to believe that the
rank-based code used in zoology has a stated objective of promoting
stability in the scientific name of animals!" De Queiroz wrote.

Applying the PhyloCode, only a single name change would be required to
reflect the new knowledge of termite evolution.

But not everyone is in favor of adopting the PhyloCode.

One panelist, Richard Prum -- a Yale evolutionary biologist who
reconstructed the red, white and black feathers of a flightless dinosaur
by analyzing its fossilized feather structure -- objects.

"The PhyloCode doesn't solve a useful problem," said Prum, winner of a
MacArthur Fellowship genius grant and teacher of an evolution of beauty
seminar with Yale philosopher and art critic Jonathan Gilmore.

"I suggest a name registry, building up a registry of meanings with
names," he said.

As a naturalist on the frontlines who conceived of and organized the
panel, Prosek had a practical-minded perspective.

He cautioned that when small groups of creatures are not recognized for
their diversity and given their own names, they lose protections
afforded by conservation laws.

"How we name things affects their health and well-being, so we must
wield language carefully and thoughtfully," he said.