generic oversplitting (heart of the problem)

Barry Roth barry_roth at YAHOO.COM
Mon Jul 16 15:47:58 CDT 2001

--- Ken Kinman <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:...
>      However, cladistic splitting has carried this
> process to a whole new level, which even many
> scientists see as unnecessary, especially when it
> involves the dismantling of perfectly good>
paraphyletic genera.

There is no such thing!  ;^)

>So it not surprising that some have tried to
> circumvent the increased levels of confusion and
> instability by resorting to common names.

>      Therefore, I would once again appeal to
> PhyloCoders that they NOT include generic names
> during their initial experimentation period (whichis
> probably approaching all too quickly for many of
> us).  Messing around with generic nomenclature
> prematurely could well make today's level of
> confusion look mild in comparison

Ken's coupling of splitting with cladistic taxonomy or
an interest in phylogenetic nomenclature is
unwarranted.  In my area of specialty, terrestrial
gastropods, the greatest amount of "messing around"
with generic nomenclature (proposal of monotypic
genera, ill-considered splitting of other types) is
currently being performed by persons whose systematic
philosophy is not cladistic.  Repair of this mischief
will take a generation, because there are
non-systematists (or semi-systematists) out there who
will adopt whatever name change comes along, in the
interest of seeming "current," without inspecting its
logical underpinning.

Excuse me for being a bit pointed; this post touched a


Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

More information about the Taxacom mailing list