Polycode editorial

[Chris J. Durden]

Ron,
    I finally managed to get through to the PhyloCode site. Given certain 
assumptions the code is well crafted. These assumptions however introduce 
an element of instability into nomenclature which would seem to require the 
complete renaming of supraspecific taxonomy and eventually, specific 
taxonomy. I do not think this is desirable or useful and certainly not 
necessary.
    Why these people cannot work within the framework of the existing rules 
escapes me. I see nothing inherently phylo-hostile in the existing systems 
of nomenclature (Bot/Zo/Bac).
    Three members of the advisory group are colleagues of mine for whose 
other work I have great respect. I must pick their brains before further 
comments.
................Chris Durden


At 12:50 AM 4/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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