Dear colleagues, Indeed, Phil makes a very good case for keeping Article 10.9. I look forward to reading what he has to write about the other aspects of the proposed revision. Best wishes, Michel On 11/01/12 20:35, Cantino, Philip wrote: > > Dear CPN Members, > > My concerns about the Cellinese et al. species proposal are mostly > practical rather than theoretical.Although I agree that "the PhyloCode > is about naming clades", I recognize that most systematic biologists > are also interested in naming species or at least use species > names.The authors of this proposal consider species to be merely a > rank, but many biologists view them as a distinct kind of evolutionary > entity.Furthermore, species names are very widely used by > non-scientists, probably moreso than any other taxonomic names.They > are integral to communication in many fields including agriculture, > horticulture, forestry, pharmacy, and even certain areas of law (e.g., > endangered species protection, import regulations).In order for the > PhyloCode to be accepted by more than just a small subgroup of > phylogenetic systematists, it is essential that it _not interfere with > clear communication about species._Furthermore, it ideally should > provide a means for people to integrate species names with > PhyloCode-governed clade names.If such a mechanism is not provided, it > will discourage many people (biologists and non-scientists alike) who > deal heavily with species from adopting phylogenetic nomenclature for > clades. Providing such a mechanism is the function of Article 21, > which Cellinese et al. propose to eliminate entirely. > > The aspect of the proposal to which I object most strenuously is the > elimination of Art. 10.9, because doing so would open the door for > some PhyloCode users to name clades in a way that will cause confusion > for users of species names (I will explain below). Permitting this > would be a disservice to the systematic biology community and the > broader society that uses scientific names. > > A good example illustrating why it is critical to retain Art. 10.9 can > be found in a 2006 paper by Kirsten Fisher (Syst. Bot. 31: 13-30), who > was a graduate student of Brent Mishler's (Brent is one of the authors > of the species proposal).In this paper, Fisher named five terminal > clades (each corresponding in morphology to a previously named > species) within a subgroup of the moss genus /Syrrhopodon/ by > converting specific epithets.She used node-based definitions with two > to four internal specifiers, each of which is a herbarium specimen.In > each definition, one of the specifiers is the type specimen.The other > specifiers are sometimes vouchers from her molecular and morphological > analyses and sometimes specimens that she felt represented the > geographical breadth of the taxon.Her trees showed little to no > resolution within each of the five terminal clades.Now, suppose that a > future analysis with more rapidly evolving molecular markers and > representation of a broader set of populations were to find that a > specimen X that Fisher did not use as a specifier is basal to all of > the internal specifiers that she did use but identical in morphology > to them.For example, specimen X might key out to /borneensis/ in her > key but lie outside the clade /borneensis/ as she defined it.Of course > one could then coin a new clade name (let's call it /papuensis/) that > would include /borneensis/ plus specimen X, but the name /papuensis/ > would correspond in content and morphology to the species that is > called /Syrrhopodon borneensis/ under rank-based nomenclature, and the > clade /borneensis/ would be a morphologically indistinguishable subset > of the species /S. borneensis/.This would be a decidedly undesirable > outcome from the standpoint of clear communication. And suppose a > later analysis finds a population of S. borneensis that is even more > basal than specimen X and yet another name must be coined for the same > morphological taxon (but a slightly more inclusive clade)... > > Of course analogous problems can occur when converting the names of > larger clades, but this situation is less likely to occur because we > generally know more about the basal topology of more inclusive clades > (at least those that we choose to name) than we do about the topology > of populations forming a species or terminal clade.There may be > thousands of populations that could conceivably be basal within a > monophyletic species (terminal clade), as compared to generally far > fewer candidates for the two basal subclades of a larger clade.So the > likelihood of discovering subsequently that a name applies to a > smaller clade than intended is greater for terminal > clades.Furthermore, the impact on the outside world is greater when > species names are involved.A lot of people out there who are not > taxonomists, let alone phylogeneticists, care about the meaning of > species names, and they don't like names changing unnecessarily.It is > at our peril that we mess with species names; doing so will be a > lightning rod for criticism of phylogenetic nomenclature as a > whole.The authors of this proposal imply (end of their second > paragraph) that their proposal will make the PhyloCode "available to > all systematists regardless of their views on the nature of > species".On the contrary, I think that if we were to adopt their > proposal, the code would be far less suitable than it is now for > people who use species names---which is the vast majority of systematists. > > I have concerns about other aspects of their proposal too, but I'll > cover them in a later message. > > Phil > > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn -- UMR 7207 Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle Batiment de Géologie Case postale 48 43 rue Buffon F-75231 Paris cedex 05 FRANCE http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120111/f67016cd/attachment.html
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.