First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Paris 2004

[Curtis Clark]

At 08:02 2003-07-03 -0400, Michael Vincent wrote:
>It is certainly NOT universally accepted and will not be.  It will likely
>be accepted by a small group of phylogeneticists, but I cannot imagine that
>governmental agencies will jump on the bandwagon, at least not right
>away.  The time-tested Linnaean binomial system is much more user friendly
>than any "phylocode" could ever be, it seems to me...  Ron Gatrelle is
>correct, though, that those of us opposed to this movement should be
>diligent to speak out against it.

The lessons of history.... A century ago, botanists were going through a
nomenclatural shakeup, with competing European and American codes, and very
different ideas on priority and other issues. The current code includes
concepts from both camps. Rankless classification may seem a much more
substantial change, but we've come to take the priority issues for granted
in the last hundred years.

Ken Kinman has convinced me that Phylocode is counterproductive and that I
should instead continue to impose holophyletic groups on the Linnaean
system, but the court of public opinion is always a cruel and effective
arbiter.


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department            Voice: +1 909 869 4062
California State Polytechnic University     FAX: +1 909 869 4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu