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

Sat Jan 14 11:33:36 EST 2012

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 