Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz
biotemail at gmail.com
Mon Jun 14 04:54:14 CDT 2021
Calling someone "anti-phylocoder" would confer the PhyloCode an importance
that it certainly does not have.
On the other hand, before you attempt reminding anyone of anything, you
should get your facts straight. The "adoption of 1758 in zoology (...) in
the 19th century as the dates of the “law of priority” application that
disvalidated all earlier taxonomic names and their authorship" is not quite
1) The "adoption of 1758 in zoology":
When the Strickland Code (published 1843) was being drafted, Strickland
left blank the edition of the Systema Naturae to be adopted. It was the
members of the Manchester Committee who chose not the 10th edition from
1758 but the 12th from 1766 as the starting date of Zoological Nomenclature.
2) "in the 19th century":
Every time that the Strickland Code was reprinted (e.g., 1863, 1866, 1878),
the chosen, 12th edition of the Systema Naturae remained the same, so not
1758 but 1766. So, for more than the first half of the second half of the
19th century, the adopted starting date of the binomial nomenclature was
1766. Clarifying this is important for evaluating the next part of your
3) "the “law of priority” application that disvalidated all earlier
taxonomic names and their authorship":
This is utterly false. Already in the 1866 edition of the Strickland Code,
the Bath Committee, "after much deliberation", issued Recommendation III,
which stated that the works of Artedi and Scopoli, and the names contained
in those works, were not to be affected by the Principle of Priority and
the 1766 date. There have always been debates and there have always been
There have also been voices against laws with retroactive effect, but
anti-ethical is something that the first, subsequent, and present rules
were and are not. The rules were not established to praise Linnaeus, and
Linnaeus was long gone by the time that the first rules were drafted and
broadly divulged. The rules govern binomial nomenclature and that is why,
on logical grounds, there can be no ruled priority over non-binomial or
binomial names before the start of binomial nomenclature itself. That
affects Linnaean authorship as well. Linnaeus would never get recognition
of priority for *Scolopendra indica* Linnaeus, 1754, but only for *Scolopendra
morsitans* Linnaeus, 1758, a subsequent name. The motivations behind the
rules have always been highly ethical, logical, and practical.
This is not the case of the PhyloCode, which set a starting date in the
future, and whose authors and supporters clearly benefit from the absurd
authorship rules of the PhyloCode. Now you tell us what is unethical.
The evil in the PhyloCode and in quite a few of the 19th century detractors
of the original rules was already addressed in 1843: "But there is another
source for this evil, which is far less excusable, — the practice of
gratifying individual vanity by attempting on the most frivolous pretexts
to cancel the terms established by original discoverers, and to substitute
a new and unauthorized nomenclature in their place." Back then and now,
there were and are people eager to gain authorship and recognition by
So no, this is not about worshipping Linnaeus. If it is so, it is only in
your mind. This is about regulating the most efficient system of
nomenclature since the date it was consistently adopted by its original
author. And no, rules that set a starting date in the past cannot be
compared to rules that set a starting date in the future. And no, a system
that was the first of its kind cannot be compared to one that is certainly
Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
FI-20014 University of Turku
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
El dom, 13 jun 2021 a las 23:12, igor pavlinov (<ipvl2008 at mail.ru>)
> Hi all anti-phylocoders,
> this is just to remind you that an adoption of 1758 in zoology and 1753,
> 1789, and 1820 in botany in the 19th century as the dates of the “law of
> priority” application that disvalidated all earlier taxonomic names and
> their authorship. In the second half of the 19th century, there were voices
> against this anti-ethical “law” with retroactive effect. Are there any
> current devoted “Linnaeans” protesting against this retroactive law? And if
> there are none, why do they protest against the phylocoders’ clauses,
> worshipping Hennig, that just reproduce, in this respect, those established
> 1,5 centuries ago by the then nomenclaturists having worshiped Linnaeus?
> - - -
> Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
> Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
> ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
> 125009 Moscow
> Воскресенье, 13 июня 2021, 16:34 +03:00 от Evangelos Vlachos via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:
> Yes, but also the Phylocode ended up being something less ambitious and
> extensive, compared to the original plan (see their failure on species
> names) which is criticized by Nixon et al.
> We need to realize what the PhyloCode is and is not, and treat it
> PC, for example, started with the promise of abolishing mandatory ranks and
> ended up having more mandatory ranks than the ICZN (species and genera are
> indirectly accepted in PC, and then they also have crown and panstem
> "ranks" as well).
> Today, the PhyloCode is nothing more than a parallel and additional
> citation system to boost the citations of their authors in two ways: 1)
> authors of previously established family group names are changed to the
> Phylocode authors who defined (NOT named) that taxon in a phylogeny, and 2)
> have elevated authority of definitions as an additional citation next to
> taxonomic names. And if you count emanations, a PhyloCode name could have
> up to three authorship next to it! It's ridiculous.
> And they achieved that by doing another shameful decision: they set the
> starting date of the PhyloCode in the future! Thus, a privileged few that
> had inside information on the upcoming publication of PhyloNyms, rushed to
> established additional names for their taxonomic groups and claim all
> authorships. I know that because I was invited to participate in my own
> taxonomic group. I refused, of course...
> If they had done what ICZN, for example, has done and set the date in the
> past (e.g. the publication of Hennig's book) all current PhyloCoders whould
> lose many citations. Who would want that?
> A disgrace.
> What bothers me the most is that currently the PhyloCode mostly scavenges
> over ICZN and ICBN names, who have been named and used under those codes
> and by authors who respect those codes. The great majority of PC names are
> "preexisting names", names established under other Codes.
> Then, other authors come, usurp those names and just provide an emended
> diagnosis (in many cases not even that) claiming citation and authorship.
> If PhyloCode was new and parallel, fine. But as it works now it is a really
> a disgrace.
> Names established under the Codes (under their rules and naming practices
> and prestige) are (in my opinion) also trademarks of these Codes (besides
> intellectual property of the authors), and should not be usurped as such in
> the PhyloCode...
> The way I see it, the PhyloCode has become (originally was something
> interesting) a set of rules that allows people that were fed up of citing
> past authors for family group names and higher, and they just wanted to
> start citing themselves.
> For me, firm actions should be taken against the PhyloCode.
> Anyway, these are my two cents...
> Evan Vlachos
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 03:47 Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <http:///compose?Toemail@example.com>>
> > These words by Nixon et al. (2003) sound as if they were written today:
> > "The most important conclusion is that we need community involvement in
> > this. A small group of people who have very significant resources, and
> > influence, are overthrowing your government — the ICBN and the ICZN. If
> > community does not become actively involved in fighting the PhyloCode,
> > will succeed, and in so doing, demolish much of the hard work that our
> > predecessors have built into the current codes. We do not need a parallel
> > system."
> > The difference is that now not just the codes but the whole of Taxonomy
> > at stake.
> > Cheers,
> > Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> > FI-20014 University of Turku
> > Finland
> > Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> > ResearchGate profile
> > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> > Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> > <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
> > ------------------------------
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 23:54:04 +0000
> > From: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com
> > To: Taxacom Mailinglist <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: [Taxacom] PhyloCode
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> SA0PR19MB41907B98A0901E2E9C032B03C1369 at SA0PR19MB4190.namprd19.prod.outlook.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> > Hi All,
> > This talk of numerous parallel naming systems reminds me of the
> > confusion that has resulted from PhyloCode. Those problems were noted
> > ago in the 2003 article "The PhyloCode Is Fatally Flawed, and the
> > “Linnaean” System Can Easily Be Fixed".
> > [
> > ]<
> > >
> > (PDF) The PhyloCode Is Fatally Flawed, and the “Linnaean” System Can
> > Be Fixed - ResearchGate<
> > >
> > NCBI Taxonomy is the main taxonomic source for several bioinformatics
> > and databases since all organisms with sequence accessions deposited on
> > INSDC are organized in its hierarchical structure.
> > www.researchgate.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years,
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
More information about the Taxacom