Real taxa => Ranking

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Fri Oct 1 11:40:03 CDT 2004


From: Ken Kinman <kinman2 at YAHOO.COM>
> Dear Richard,
>      Well, I too will echo my agreement with your last statement.
However, I am increasingly convinced that PhyloCode is not even close to
being the right approach to solving such problems. [...]

>       Now, I suppose something like the PhyloCode could be formulated (in
a way that didn't clash with existing Codes) that would be even more optimal
in some ways, but the present PhyloCode is so far from approaching what that
might be, it seems increasingly absurd to pretend that it can be salvaged.
As it is presently formulated, it is a clear threat to the other Codes.

*****
Let's echo some of these sentiments too. Indeed, a considerable difference
exists between an ideal and its realization. The more I see of the existing
Codes, the more I am appreciative of the effort that went into getting them
to work and what an achievement it is to have Codes that internationally are
universally accepted!

Although my first hand experience with the PhyloCode is quite limited I
don't really see how a Code can work that allows the author a choice of his
favourite definition in describing the fundamental character of the basic
unit to be named.

Also, the first priority of the PhyloCode should indeed be to fulfill the
need indicated by Richard Pyle. The existing informal practice of
pre-PhyloCode names will be an indication of its chances for eventual
success?
PvR




More information about the Taxacom mailing list