PhyloCode: The real problem...again

Dipteryx dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Sat Jul 5 14:04:25 CDT 2003


From: Mike Barker <barkerms at MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 9:28 AM
 [snip]
> I would suggest that anybody interested in PhyloCode check out the
> following website for a call to other people who are opposed to
> PhyloCode: http://eavp.alettra.de/Phylocode.htm
> --
> Best regards,
> Mike Barker

+ + +
Surely the views espoused there are as bad to a botanist, if not worse, as
the PhyloCode. These may apply to zoology, but it all sounds remarkably
backwards.

"a name is equivalent to a diagnosis and vice versa."
This obviously is the pre-Linnaean point of view and exactly what was
overturned by Linnaeus. This is the one contribution that Linnaeus made to
nomenclature, to establish usage of a separate binary name besides the
(name-as-)diagnosis. Otherwise his merits (enormous though they are) don't
include any lasting innovations and are peripheral to the fields of
systematics and nomenclature.

In botany the Linnaean system of nomenclature fell into disuse circa 1800,
which was a good thing since it held back the progress of science. The only
ranks recognised by Linnaeus that are still in use today are the species and
the genus and obviously these were already in use before his day.

Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL




More information about the Taxacom mailing list