"Fuzziness" (Continuity and classification)

Richard Pyle deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Fri Jul 27 07:00:34 CDT 2001

Hi Byron,

Thanks for forwarding the reference.

Is this a criticism of the concept (reflecting the phylogeny in the
nomenclature), or is it a criticism of implementation (cladistic
over-confidence leading to nomenclatural changes based upon weakly supported
phylogenies, leading to unnecessary instabiliy).  In other words, would the
criticisms still stand if future technology allowed us to elucidate
phylogenies with tremendous confidence?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Byron J. Adams
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:40 AM
> Subject: Re: "Fuzziness" (Continuity and classification)
> Hi Rich -
> Although they do not address the Phylocode explicitly, Kevin Nixon and Jim
> Carpenter recently criticised the "phylogenetic" (node node
> pointing) system
> of de Quieroz and Gauthier, charging that the NP system is less stable (in
> terms of the net change in species included in a particular group under
> different classifications) than a Linnean system that is modified
> to reflect
> recovered evolutionary history.
> I'll wager there is substantial support for their opinions among the ranks
> of "working taxonomists" (sensu Carpenter).
> Nixon, K. C. and J. M. Carpenter (2000) On the other "phylogenetic
> systematics".  Cladistics 16:298-318.
> cheers,
> Byron
> on 7/26/01 6:48 PM, Richard Pyle at deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, of the existing taxonomists who believe that the
> > nomenclature and classification system should strictly map
> phylogeny (i.e.,
> > strict cladists), what proportion would prefer to modify the
> Linnaean system
> > to meet their needs, rather than opt for a system like
> Phylocode, which is
> > designed specifically to meet their needs? (after the Phylocode
> goes into
> > effect, of course)  I'm not talking about people who employ cladistic
> > methodology as one avenue in a toolbox of many (e.g., biogeography,
> > morphological and functional divergence, etc.) in order to
> arrive at their
> > proposed classifications (which might include "semi-holophyly", as Ken
> > defines it). I'm talking about people who believe that the
> classification
> > must strictly reflect the evolutionary history, without
> exception.  Is there
> > a robust body of strictly cladistical taxonomists who reject the planned
> > implementation of the Phylocode?  If there are such
> researhcers, have they
> > read and do they understand the draft Phylocode? Have they offered their
> > objections to the Phylocode framers in a constructive way?
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> --
> Byron J. Adams
> University of Florida
> Dept. of Entomology and Nematology
> Natural Area Drive
> PO Box 110620
> Gainesville, FL 32611-0260

More information about the Taxacom mailing list