Platnick's view of Phylocode

[Thomas Pape]

Ken Kinman wrote:

"..... The point is that my classifications are basically encoded
cladograms,
with an occasional paraphyletic break (at major gaps) to reflect major
evolutionary events (the amphibian transition to land, the transition to the
amniotic egg, the transition of fuzzy dinosaurs into feathered birds)..."

But why stress an evolutionary novelty, however 'major' it may seem, by
lumping groups NOT having this feature into a paraphyletic non-group?

Does the advent of the amniotes in any way justify that non-amniote
'amphibians' should not have their correct phylogeny mapped in the
classification?

Why cannot a 'minor gap' be just as scientifically exciting as a 'major
gap'?

How does a paraphyletic group add to the information content of a
classification apart from visualising our lack of knowledge?

Should classifications be scientifically coherent in the sense of being
logically consistent with the reality of individual taxa (or clades) open to
critical testing?

Thomas Pape
Naturhistoriska riksmuseet