[CPN] Elimination of Art. 10.9 (in Cellinese et al. species proposal)

[Michel Laurin]

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