Ron at Ron at
Fri Apr 6 04:27:56 CDT 2001

The following applies to everything from marriage to mars missions. IF it
isn't broke, why fix it or replace it?  Is ICZN/ICBN broke or in need of

The following applies to everything from manure to malaria. If it stinks,
bury it or at least burn it!  Does ICZN/ICBN  need to be buried or burned?

Logical arguments are so stupid. What is totally logical to one is usually
totally illogical to the next person. Logic only gets a positive nod from
the Amen corner. My business is people (I am a pastor). In marital
disputes, the husband is by far the one who most often wants to make
everything an issue of "logic". There is a big difference between logic an
fact. As the mediator I try to bring everyone to the facts of the issues as
much as possible. Let's find the facts and let them give us the answer.
Gosh! That is how science is supposed to operate! Logic is the fuel of
Philosophy (and rocket science math - which is actually a whole different
kind of "logic").

Do you drink a lot of alcohol?   Yes.  Do you get drunk often?  Yes. Have
you lost jobs, suffered broken relationships etc. during these periods of
heavy dinking?  Yes. Do you think the drinking and drunkenness are a
possible cause of these losses?  NO!   See ya next week.  That is the logic
of an alcoholic. He honestly does not think his drinking and problems are
cause and effect. You can't argue with logic. Yes, I have taken debate
class. The purpose of "logic" in a debate is not to factually prove
something, it is to win a majority vote of the jury of listeners. Lots of
"logical" debates have been "won" that resulted in things like racism,
religious and political wars, broken marriages, and in this case Code

Fact. Neither the ICZN/ICBN codes nor the phylocode invented themselves.
Fact. They are the products of persons.
Fact. An examination of the record of this Code debate demonstrates that
the persons on each side have agendas. That is, differing ways of seeing
and doing things in trying to define the natural world around them. This is
subjective analysis (logic) - an inescapable human vice. This has produced
a state of conflict where, to highly varying degrees and from participant
to participant, an assessment of the others Code is that it is in some
degree of stink or broke.

How I see it?  Talk of peace and co-existence all you want - this is a war.
There is one chair in the room upon which the fat guy sits. The skinny guy
says he just wants a share - just a little friendly cheek to cheek. Don't
believe him Fatty, beneath his soft tone is a desire to get the whole
chair. If you give him an inch he will take a mile.  And you, Skinny, the
challenger, you know what you want - your own place - your own chair - but
there is only one. Fatty will have to go. Why is this chair so prized?
Because it is not just a chair, a place, it is a throne. The Throne of
control over biological definition. People, like god's, don't share thrones
very well - they fight till The Throne is won (one).

Final facts. Anything with more than one head is a freak. The codes are not
at conflict - the people who made, sustain, promote, and worship them are.

----- Original Message -----
From: "B. J. Tindall" <bti at DSMZ.DE>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: nomenclature

> So, let the Phylocode co-exist with the three existing codes. Let's
> that there are 5 million known species which have been named according to
> the existing codes, and at least 100,000 have not been picked up by the
> Zoological Record. Then the majority of these species get coverted to
> "least inclusive taxonomic units" so you have the same "biological
> entities" (i.e. species of LITUs), which means a maximum of 5 million
> of LITUs. If there is not 100% equivalence between species and LITUs then
> one has to sit down and work out where there is corelation between the 5
> million species names (100,000 of which are not in a database) and the
> million LITU names.......any offers to do that? Of course there is then
> situation where an LITU is described under the Phylocode, but does not
> qualify under existing codes - so what list do we use for Species 2000?
> Heard of the Mars project which missed the target because the US was
> working in inches and the Europeans in metres, and someone got their
> coversion factors wrong?
> By the way can anyone send me a list of ALL the names of generic homonyms
> between botany, zoology and would save me having to
> this manually via the Internet?
> I am not against change - I changed to SI units in physics at school,
> were nomenclatural changes in chemistry, took decimalisation of pounds
> shillings and pence (in the UK) in my stride 30 years ago, learnt another
> language at 28, and we go "Euro" in less than one year, but the real
> is not about names it is about our changing perspective of the way
> organisms are classified and neither the Phylocode, nor any of the
> codes really have an answer to the problem of changes in classification.
> Names of species remain stable if we do not change the classification,
> the LITUs within a clade only remain constant if we do not change the
> classification - or have I missed the point!?
> Brian
> >At 07:33 PM 4/4/01, Doug Yanega wrote:
> >>Curtis Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> >The only
> >> >reasons they can't coexist are reasons of personality, not of logic.
> >>
> >>Not so. If someone publishes clade names for Phylocode purposes, then
> >>will very often satisfy the ICZN/ICBN guidelines for being validly
> >>published - and forever thereafter, even if they violate various code
> >>provisions, they will still need to be shoehorned into the traditional
> >>system, if only to declare them all nomina nuda or whatever.
> >
> >That's not logic, that's b*llsh*t. It's the same as if botanists of the
> >last century said that because descriptions of new plants in newspapers
> >could be validly published according to the ICBN, we should ban
> >Instead, the ICBN rules were changed to eliminate newspaper publication
> >(although see Joe Laferriere's posts of several years ago for a
> >take on this).
> >
> >If the Phylocode people are intentionally trying to make the
> >so similar that Phylocode names are also ICxN names, that is a serious
> >problem. But it is a problem of personalities. On the other hand, some
> >the aspects of Phylocode seem to be quite different--I haven't read the
> >section on typification in a while, but some of the proposals would have
> >required a Phylocode group to have at least *two* types ("the least
> >inclusive group containing both X and Y"), which violates ICBN (they
> >not be syntypes, since they are explicitly regarded as non-equivalent),
> >I imagine ICZN as well. And if there is still a problem, it can be
> >
> >Why is it that Phylocode discussions always break down into alarmist
> >rhetoric? A lot of you who work in the United States are familiar with
> >rectilinear land survey of township/range/section. For various reasons,
> >is not algorithmically convertible (in any useful way) to
> >latitude/longitude. And yet no one (that I know of) claims that we have
> >make the decision to use one or the other. Each has its
> >is most useful for GIS, rectilinear when you are driving section line
> >in the Great Plains with no GPS. I'll say it again, there is no
> >reason why Phylocode and ICxN can't coexist.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Curtis Clark        
> >Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
> >California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
> >Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at
> >
> ********************************************************************
> * Dr.B.J.Tindall      E-MAIL bti at                           *
> * DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH *
> * Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany                *
> * Tel.: ++ 531 2616 0 (general)                                    *
> * Tel.: ++ 531 2616 224 (direct)                                   *
> * Fax:  ++ 531 2616 418                                            *
> * Fax:  ++ 531 2616 491 (ISDN)                                     *
> *                                                                  *
> * Homepage:                          *
> * E-MAIL: help at (general enquiries)                         *
> *         sales at (sales)                                    *
> ********************************************************************

More information about the Taxacom mailing list