[CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal

[Michel Laurin]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120114/1d3b826c/attachment-0001.html