[CPN] Proposal to amend the PhyloCode

[David Marjanovic]

Thanks to everyone for Brian Andres's probable e-mail address.

Philip Cantino wrote:

>  Mike, it would be simpler if you would send this and future messages
>  to the CPN listserv (cpn at listserv.ohio.edu). At least one of the
>  individual addresses you mailed this to is apparently incorrect. I
>  am copying this to David, who also sent a message to the individual
>  board members rather than the listserv. If you want to be sure that
>  everyone sees your message, you may want to send it again to the
>  listserv. The authors of the proposal are not on the listserv, so
>  you would have to cc your messages to them if you want them
>  included.

I hope everyone will receive this, then...

> > I'll offer some preliminary thoughts as well.
> >
> > I like the idea of removing the dependency on species from the
> > code, thus avoiding the "species problem". In the past I've
> > advocated a similar approach, where we deal in organisms rather
> > than species. However, since then I've realized there is also an
> > "organism problem"! That is, it's not always clear in biology what
> > constitutes an individual organism (think of slime molds, lichens,
> > etc.).

That's true, but the organism problem is much, much smaller than the 
species problem! Cases where it could lead to actual trouble will be, at 
most, so rare that we (the CPN) could easily deal with them on a 
case-to-case basis.

> > Now I think perhaps it is preferable to think of phylogeny in terms
> > of taxonomic units. A phylogeny is a directed, acyclic graph
> > wherein the nodes are taxonomic units and the [directed] edges are
> > [immediate] ancestor-descendant relationships. How units and
> > relationships are determined is beyond the purview of the code
> > (just as taxonomy is beyond the purview of the rank-based codes),
> > but the code requires them in order to be applied.
> >
> > So I would suggest that perhaps we use the phrase "taxonomic
> > units" (or, where clear, just "units") instead of "organisms",
> > "populations", "species", etc.

This will be misunderstood to include "higher taxa".

> > I've written a document explaining this approach in nauseating
> > detail: http://namesonnodes.org/ns/math/2009/index.html

I'll try to read it sometime... :-]

> >> Art. 2.1: I agree with the proposal, though I like Keesey's
> >> "ancestral set" even better.
> >
> > More recently I've been using the term "cladogen":
> > http://namesonnodes.org/ns/math/2009/index.html#section-Cladogens

That's a nice word!