[Taxacom] Phylogenetic Game

dipteryx at freeler.nl dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed Dec 15 03:57:21 CST 2010

A basic tenet of existing nomenclature is that 
nomenclature and taxonomy are independent. For 
the purpose of scientific naming, it does not matter
one bit what kind of science a taxonomist uses to 
delimit his taxon. It is assumed that any scientific
method is likely to be superseded anyway, given 
enough time ('scientific truth' being not quite as
changeable as fashion, but close enough).

So, a name is a name, and although it may be applied
to a taxon, the name is not the taxon, nor is the
taxon the name.

If ever such a proposal is accepted into a nomenclatural
Code this likely will mean the end of the world (or at
least of the relevant nomenclatural universe). Then again,
maybe the PhyloCode is just such a proposal (creating its
own nomenclatural universe, which may, or may not, be 
intended to replace the existing universes). We are still
waiting to see if this will actually be put in effect, 
and, if so, how succesful it wil be.

Paul van Rijckevorsel

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
Verzonden: wo 15-12-2010 0:19
Aan: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Onderwerp: RE: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic Game
Ah, but just you wait, Paul. Soon a proposal will be introduced that renders as illegitimate all new names that make another taxon paraphyletic. 
This would be a good test of the steel in the resolve of evolutionary taxonomists. Would you let this happen? 
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org


From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sent: Tue 12/14/2010 2:31 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic Game

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens John Grehan

> A species name would seem to be paraphyletic if it is the same
> name applied to the entity that included the isolate that
> differentiated. If the larger range was given a new name then
> that would not be paraphyletic.

This is a novelty. I am familiar with names being unavailable,
illegitimate, incorrect, etc, but I have never heard of a name
being paraphyletic. I assume that this is according to the
International Code of Cladistic Nomenclature, or some such
new Code?

Paul van Rijckevorsel


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list