[CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
Michel Laurin michel.laurin at upmc.frSat Jan 14 11:33:36 EST 2012
- Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
- Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Phil, Sure, that would be fine with me. Or even simpler: a kind of biological entity that may or may not be a clade. Cheers, Michel On 14/01/12 17:16, Cantino, Philip wrote: > Thanks, Michel. I like your first suggested wording but I'd go even > further and say: a kind of biological entity that may or may not be > different from a clade. This makes it clear that some biologists > consider species to be small clades and some do not. > Phil > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Michel Laurin wrote: > >> Dear Phil, >> >> I think that you are on the right track. I am guessing that Nico >> and Brent will not find that sufficient, but the main purpose is to >> improve the code. The new species definition is more neutral. I would >> reformulate it slightly, hower, as such: >> >> A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a kind of >> biological *that may be *entity different from a clade... >> >> Or: >> >> A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a kind of >> biological entity different from a clade *(although some may happen >> to be clades as well) *or simply a taxon of low rank in traditional >> nomenclature. >> >> Because some authors (Nico and Brent, apprantely) conceptualize >> species as clades, and even if they are conceptualized differently, >> some will be clades, by chance. I think that Nico and Brent might >> prefer the first option. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michel >> >> On 13/01/12 21:18, Cantino, Philip wrote: >>> >>> CPN members, >>> >>> In considering the Cellinese et al. proposal, I think it is >>> important to separate philosophical considerations from practical >>> ones.The philosophical premise underlying their proposal is stated >>> in their second paragraph:"The debate over species concepts does not >>> need to be solved for the purpose of naming clades under the >>> PhyloCode.Phylogenetic nomenclature can and should remain logically >>> independent from the philosophical debate about species.Therefore, >>> the PhyloCode need not and should not anoint any particular species >>> concept as the correct one. "They conclude in the next sentence that >>> "by leaving the word 'species' out of the entire document it will be >>> clear that the PhyloCode is available to all systematists regardless >>> of their views on the nature of species." >>> >>> I am sympathetic to their premise that because the PhyloCode focuses >>> strictly on the naming of clades, it should not adopt a particular >>> stance on the nature of species, but I strongly disagree that the >>> word "species" should be banished from the code.Doing so would >>> ignore the reality that the vast majority of biologists (I'd wager >>> 99.9%), not to mention most of the general public, use species names >>> and will continue to do so regardless what they think a species >>> is.If we want the systematics community to use the PhyloCode, we >>> need to make it possible for people to define clade names using the >>> entities they are most familiar with (species) and to combine >>> species names with PhyloCode-governed clade names in scientific >>> works and in the classroom.If people have to choose between using >>> species names and using the PhyloCode, our effort is doomed. >>> >>> There are certain parts of the Cellinese et al. proposal that I >>> consider to be non-starters, most seriously the elimination of Art. >>> 10.9 (see my previous message), but we may be able to address their >>> philosophical concern with relatively few changes if we broaden the >>> definition of "species" used in the code to encompass the breadth of >>> views on this subject but continue to use the word "species" >>> (defined in this way) in the rules and recommendations.I discussed >>> this idea today with Kevin and we jointly prepared the following >>> possible definition (written in the form that it would appear in the >>> glossary), which does not endorse any particular species concept: >>> >>> */species/**.A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a >>> kind of biological entity different from a clade or simply a taxon >>> of low rank in traditional nomenclature.This code does not endorse >>> any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, >>> but it uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer >>> to taxa that are used as specifiers in definitions of clade >>> names.Article 21 provides guidelines for the use of species names >>> governed by the rank-based codes in conjunction with clade names >>> governed by this code.* >>> >>> With this definition in mind, I have started working through the >>> Cellinese et al. species proposal article by article. I will send >>> the result to the CPN next week, but if some of you feel this >>> approach is not viable, please let me know soon so I don't waste a >>> lot of time working out the details. >>> >>> Have a good weekend everyone! >>> >>> 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 >>
>> CPN mailing list >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > >> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > > > >
> 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/20120114/ac6aa941/attachment-0001.html
- Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
- Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list