Polycode editorial

[Ron Gatrelle]

Stan,
    Felix informed me that I was 180 off too on the lumper deal. This may
well be. It is interesting that coming out of the dark and just reading the
Phylocode (parts) that I came away with a lump and not a split. This is
because subspecies look to be gone - and Supra in. I think it is possible
that just as there is more than one way to skin a  ____ (-:   no offence to
PETA ), that there is more than one way to lump. Is Dino-Bird a lump or a
split? A Clade. A Supra. Yes, we can have a lot more phylo "species" -
BUT - the Phylo- species are nothing more than what the ICZN cast out long
ago - forms, variations, heck why not aberrations too. So far I still say
it is a lumpers dream come true - big lumps of little splits. What will
count in the end is the lump - clade. It will come to that.

Further, Phylocode may say in its intro that it just wants peaceful
co-existence with the ICZN... Yah, sure. That is what Sears told the mom
and pop business too when they started. NABA had no intention of putting
out a scientific names list either. What did I say about power and human
nature? Once something gets so big it just naturally decides to take over.
Might makes right.

Oh, you will love this. "Someone" suggested I subscribe to the TAXACOM
bulletin board today. So I did. In the first 20 minutes I only got two
messages - the two I sent in. I had to argue with my own self!  It was
tough! I get no respect anywhere! Not even from my own self. What's up with
this?  Oh, and now I am sitting here listening to myself tell me to get the
off the computer and do my tax return - NOW!  Ok, already. Gosh. Can I at
least wait till I have signed my nam e ?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stanlep at extremezone.com>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Polycode editorial


> 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.

>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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