[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Dec 19 13:32:00 CST 2010

> Why are we attempting to classify life in the 21st
> century without including our understanding of the "tree of life"?

I think *everyone* wants to "include" our understanding of the "tree of
life" while attempting to classify organisms.  Indeed, I bet everyone wants
our best understanding of phylogeny to *dominate* the classification system.

The discussion is about whether *every other* aspect of biology should be
*completely* ignored when assigning names to organisms (i.e., should
nomenclature be based *exclusively* on phylogeny, or should it also reflect
-- when appropriate -- other aspects of organismal biology).

My feeling is the same as it has been for many years:  I think if you want
to *strictly* represent phylogeny in Nomenclature, then you should stick to
a system like Phylocode.  If you want to carry on with the incredibly
successful Linnaean Nomenclatural system, I suspect it's best to do so in a
way that is reasonably consistent with its 250-year legacy.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list