Different codes (and eudicots)

[Richard Pyle]

> At 07:56 PM 10/22/00, Ken Kinman wrote:
> >But even Rich Pyle (who defended the PhyloCode) agrees that
> >it would be prudent to leave genera out of the PhyloCode
> "experiment" until
> >we better know how it will work or not work.
>
> Okay, once again, Phylocode is rankless, so of course genera will be "left
> out". If what you and Richard mean is that no Phylocode clade should
> correspond to anyone's conception of a given genus, well, that's
> a lot to ask.

What I meant is that, during its initial "beta-testing" phase, PhyloCode
users should try to avoid converting Linnaean generic names to PhyloCode
names, and should concentrate on using the new nomenclature to represent
phylogenies at higher levels.  I had composed one of my usual long-winded
responses to this effect, but decided to delete it because I was starting to
tire of my own posts (which likely meant others felt the same).  Basically,
I clarified my point by suggesting that PhyloCode treat Linnaean names of
the generic rank as specifiers, rather than as clades. If the existing draft
PhyloCode can leave species names alone (i.e. treat them as specifiers, but
leave the governance of their nomenclature to the respective other codes),
then it can do the same for generic names as well (unlike many other
taxonomists, I see little reason why the rank of "species" is fundamentally
less arbitrary than other ranks).

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
"The views expressed are the author's, and not necessarily those of Bishop
Museum."