Continued Sarcasm or New Synthesis?
jaakko.hyvonen at HELSINKI.FI
Wed Apr 4 14:33:32 CDT 2001
Ken, check out
Nixon, K.C. & Carpenter, J.M. 2000: On the other "phylogenetic
systematics". Cladistics 16:298-318. (http://www.idealibrary.com),
Lidén, M. et al. 1997. Charlie is our darling. Taxon 46:735-738
Benton, M. 2000 Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is
Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633-648
for criticism of node-based nomenclature
> I'd be interested to know if there is any one thing that such hard-core
>cladists find particularly dreadful (or badly thought-out) about PhyloCode?
>>From: Thomas DiBenedetto <TDibenedetto at DCCMC.ORG>
>>To: 'Ken Kinman' <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>, TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>>Subject: RE: Continued Sarcasm or New Synthesis?
>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:07:33 -0400
>>I think there is a factor missing from the debate over the Phylo-code. We
>>see proponents of various alternative systematic philosophies bashing
>>cladists, and cladistics in general, as if the Phylocode were some
>>extrapolation from cladistic principles. The authors of the Phylocode
>>certainly make the case that its principles are deduced from general
>>cladistic principles, but there are many of us, who considered ourselves
>>hard core cladists, who find the Phylocode to be absolutely dreadful and
>>wrong-headed. As a result of my own personal history, I have contacts with
>>at least two of the factions of cladists who are considered by most to be
>>the most "hard-core", and amongst them, I find the prevailing opinion of
>>Phylocode to be unanimous and negative.
>>I suspect that the issues will be joined with increasing frequency and with
>>increasing heat in the months and years to come. I just wish to leave
>>everyone here with the understanding that the Phylocode should in no way be
>>considered as the prevailing view amongst cladists. There are some elements
>>of the phylocode proposals that are positive and important. Of course, the
>>use of ranks is unscientific, and has lead to some horrid "scientific"
>>analyses. And the underlying motivation of the phylocode proponenents, to
>>re-orient our nomenclature and classification with phylogenetic principles,
>>is very important and long-overdue. But other aspects of the proposal are
>>very badly thought out, and I doubt that they will find general acceptance.
>>Let the fun begin!
Jaakko Hyvönen phone office +358-(0)9-19124413
Division of Systematic Biology phone cellular +358-(0)50-5171184
PO Box 7 phone home +358-(0)9-2985258
FIN-00014 UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI facsimile +358-(0)9-19124456
FINLAND e-mail jaakko.hyvonen at helsinki.fi
More information about the Taxacom