Polycode editorial

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

I don't know much about this either.  In a sense it seems to me
PhyloCode is merely a different expression of the current Linnaean
system because the underlying basis of systematics and taxonomy under
the Linnaean system is relatedness anyway, even if clades are not
identified.  The advantage I can see with Phylocode is that major
taxonomic revisions, depending on where the type specimen is put, would
be minimized because there is no 'type' specimen.  However, even under
the PhyloCode system certain assumptions, as you pointed out Ron, are
made to establish what is a clade and what is not a clade.  If some of
these assumptions are subsequently found to incorrect, major shifts in
classifications would occur even under the PhyloCode system.

With respect to PhyloCode being the lumper's dream, my initial
impression was just the opposite because the concept seems to be an
extension of the phylogenetic species concept, although you may be
correct.  I don't know enough about it yet.

Stan

Ron Gatrelle 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