Phylocode: Light, not heat

[Curtis Clark]

Phylocode is not a monolith or "evil empire". There are a lot of things
that Phylocode supporters still don't agree about:

1. Should Phylocode replace the ICXNs or "parallel" them?

2. How should Phylocode deal with species? Are they real? Are they clades?
If they aren't clades, what should be their role in classification?

3. Should Phylocode name lineage groups that are overlapping? (This has
ramifications at many levels.)

4. Should Phylocode include some indication of nesting, and if so, how?

Many of us see Phylocode as a useful parallel system which avoids the
disruption that will be necessary if the Linnaean system is to provide
names for all well-marked clades. Ken is starting to convince me that this
"hands-off" policy is a misguided view, that there is no reason the
phylogeneticists shouldn't make the Linnaean system conform to their views,
just as generations of systematists have before, by naming clades in the
existing hierarchy. I suspect he will find the results even more
distasteful that the "separate sandbox", but so be it.

Ironically, clades are already named outside any formal system (the
eudicots spring to mind), and other than a few points of contention (should
we call them "heterokonts" or "stramenopiles"), this has worked fairly well.

--
Curtis Clark                 http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                 jcclark at csupomona.edu