[Taxacom] Phylocode vs Linnean nomenclature, again

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Curtis,
       Here we go again with the "blame game", as Richard Zander has
already noted earlier.  Strict cladists (and phylocoders, the most
strict of strict cladists) tend to blame the victim (the Linnaean system
of ranks, or anyone using it).  The strictest of cladists have so abused
the Linnaean system that it generated too many intermediate ranks, and
then they blame it when it doesn't stand up to their abuse.      
     Control freaks (especially PhyloCoders) readily blame the victim
(Linnaean ranks), sort of like rapists and their lawyers blame their
victims (instead of confronting their own issues, like extreme
phylophobia).  Historically it was admittedly largely a reaction to the
sloppy and excessive use of paraphyly by some workers (especially in the
early to mid-20th Century).  But the Hennigian counterrevolution then
swung things too far in the opposite direction.  
       Everyone agrees that naming clades is a desirable and necessary
taxonomic activity.  And this was true long before Hennig came along.
The problem is that Hennigianism dictates that ONLY clades (holophyletic
taxa) should be formally named, and the paraphylophobic corollary that
truncated clades ("grades") should all be condemned and eliminated no
matter how useful they might be.  
      In any case, feel free to name all the clades (holophyletic taxa)
you can document.  As a lover of undiscovered clades, it would be
countproductive of me to discourage you from doing so.  However, please
don't insist that clades are the ONLY natural and useful taxa.  For a
variety of reasons, paraphyletic taxa (truncated clades) are sometimes
not only useful, but actually necessary and desirable (and stabilizing
in the long run).  The latter also tend to stabilize classifications
against the excesses of paraphylophobic mistakes when strict cladists
fail to recognize homoplastic complexities, misrooting, and other
pitfalls (whether it is molecular or morphological).  PhyloCode will not
remedy such problems, and will actually make many such problems even
worse.  In other words, too much of good thing is rarely optimal.
Moderation in all things!!!
         ----------Ken                 
-------------------------------------------------------
Curtis wrote:
      In an alternate universe, biologists and texbook authors would
have rapidly adopted clade-based taxa, there would have been a spurt of
renaming, and the Linnaean system would have been intact. But that
didn't happen, for two reasons. First, phylogenetics didn't catch on as
fast as its proponents would have liked, and there are a number of
people (perhaps all on this list) who still reject it. Second, molecular
studies helped solve some known taxonomic conundrums (e.g., the
heterogeneous nature of the Scrophulariaceae in the flowering plants)
and exposed other unknown issues, all of which led to the need for
multiple name changes. 
      Phylocode arose from that. Some Phylocoders I've talked to felt
that named clades would always be second-class citizens in Linnaean
nomenclature, so they saw the only solution to be a new code. If there's
any "blame" for Phylocode, it can be found in the attitudes of
taxonomists who want to preserve grade-based, heterogeneous taxa. 
      The use of unranked clade names in Linnaean taxonomies is an
alternative (and one that I support over Phylocode), but *clades will be
named*.