Polycode editorial

[Ron Gatrelle]

The great beauty of the Linnaean system as regulated under the ICZN, is its
great freedom for scientific expression (argument and disagreement) within
some very strict rules. For centuries, a great part of the taxonomic record
has been the product of non-professional non-PhD researchers. The drafted
phylocode will end that.

A cursory reading of the draft phylocode at www.ohio.edu/phylocode reveals
a system totally under the control of an elitist click - and not a blind
set of rules like the ICZN. The provisions are geared to the PhD museum or
university geneticists. It is in fact anti-science for a science that is
not free to all and even radical new thought is doomed to the dictatorship
of those tenured demigods (the peer-reviewer class) who alone will decide
what is published and what is not - and only in their approved "journals".
This phylocode is monothought. It is one selfaggrandized segment of science
attempting to subject all other evolutionary and taxonomic thought to
itself.

Yes, Stanley "these discussions would become obsolete" . Free taxonomic
discussion would become obsolete. The cladists may not like to admit it but
their trees are planted in soil filled with assumptions. Their most base
assumption is that life - evolution - works in a very predictable pattern -
the way they see it. They assume X is primitive, thus Y must have arose
from X. These are more different in some way so they are more distant.
These are similar in some way so they are the same "species"  The DD and CC
"evolutionary laws" (assumptions) - different = distant (always) and
similar = same (always).

They phylocode is a lumpers dream come true. Throw all the subspecies into
the blender. Heck, throw most of the species in there too - ah, the Super
Species is king. The Wise Use people will love this! Cut that forest and
plow that prairie - there are no taxonomically unique entities there - for
there are no more subspecies. X should be taken off the endangered list as
it is genetically the same exact thing as B, G and F.

The phylocode will result in monothough. The ICZN code is polythought.
Well, I'll quit for now. I am sure I have aroused enough "feelings" by now.
We'll hear about how I don't know what I'm talking about for sure. Well, I
didn't write this because of my technical knowledge. I wrote it out of my
professional knowledge of people. Power still corrupts and absolute power
still corrupts people absolutely. The last thing we need is a taxonomy
based in a highly restricted arena with few qualified to do it and even
fewer qualified (anointed) to say who/what gets in. I can see why this is
gaining approval among the professional elite - greatly downsize the
competition and get a bigger piece of the research pie for ones self.

My last remarks. The current ICZN does not hinder phylo-science at all.
It allows it. Encourages it. Provides a place for it. The ICZN is open.
Open minded. Open science. The phylocode is closed and only possesses the
potential to become more restrictive.  It is true that democracy is much
more messy than dictatorship because of what it allows. But I'll choose the
diversity and conflict allowed by democracy any day over the safety and
sterility of monogovernment. I like my science the same way - messy but
free. If you want scientific dictatorship you are welcome to it. It will
definitely be more clean and quite.
Ron


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl