[CPN] time to move towards a decision on the Cellinese et al. proposal

Wed Mar 7 17:03:14 EST 2012

Dear CPN,

There have been several weeks of silence on the discussion re: the Cellinese et al. species proposal, and I believe it is time to proceed to a vote.  Because this is a dense proposal with quite a few related topics and proposed changes to the code, as a committee we need to decide on a process for moving towards a decision.

At this point I would like suggestions from you on how a vote should be structured.  Once we have a structure that we agree on, we can return a decision to the authors of the proposal.

Thanks much.

Dave

PS - in case you have not been looking at Sys Biol advance access, the Cellinese et al. point of view is in press.  http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent
_________________________________
David C. Tank
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium
University of Idaho
208.885.7033
dtank at uidaho.edu
http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/

On Feb 6, 2012, at 2:55 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:

> Unfortunately, my comments apparently have not yet been distributed to the CPN (as a result of David M's move to Berlin), so I will send them to the CPN listserv after I send this message.  Before doing so, I would like to comment briefly Kevin Padian's message.
> 
> Like those of Cellinese et al., Padian's arguments presuppose that the species category is nothing more than a rank.  This is evident in statements such as the following:
> 
> "It is implicitly rank-based thinking to single out the species rank for special treatment, and this seems contradictory to the principles of the PhyloCode."
> "The question is to remove species as ranks with special privilege."
> 
> Contrary to these statements and many in the proposal by Cellinese et al., the species category is no longer treated as just another taxonomic rank.  Instead, it is treated as different from the categories in the hierarchy of taxonomic ranks, with views ranging from a category with special properties to a category for an entirely different kind of entity.  This tradition traces at least back to Darwin and has become increasingly widely accepted over the years.  It underlies virtually all modern species definitions as well as a number of related ideas, including species individuality, species selection, and the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution.   This not to deny that the species category retains some elements of its former treatment as a taxonomic rank.   However, there is a HUGE difference between a retaining some historical baggage and truly being just another taxonomic rank.
> 
> Thus, I oppose the proposal of Cellinese et al. because their arguments are based on a false premise.
> 
> Kevin de Queiroz
> 
> On 2/5/12 5:46 PM, "Kevin Padian" <kpadian at Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> There has been no discussion of the Cellinese et al. proposal on the CPN
> listserv for some time.  Perhaps everyone has said his or her piece?  I am
> finding email an unsatisfactory way to resolve these problems, and I would
> ask again that people consider some kind of meeting at which this and
> other proposals can be raised and discussed.  Or, at least, let's set an
> "election day" on which to terminate comments and take votes.  (Please,
> not "Super Tuesday" ...)
> 
> I would like to revive the discussion of the Cellinese et al. proposal.
> We have seen Phil and Michel propose modifications to the PhyloCode about
> the definition of species, but this does not address the proposal, which
> was to remove species as a special rank in PhyloCode.  This is what we
> should be voting on, I think, not merely how to reword some articles of
> the Code.
> 
> There are other points of view in the systematic community, and in my view
> it would be good to consider them in order to make sure that there is a
> broad enfranchisement of positions.  Referring to Phil's first point about
> a broader glossary definition of species: for a lot of taxonomists,
> species don't need to be defined in the Phylocode by ANY definition.  We
> don't define genera, families, etc.  To do so, in the view of many, just
> clouds the issue.  If we remove any legal use of species names in the
> PhyloCode we can keep it purely focused on naming clades, and leave the
> species controversy aside.  The whole issue of species concepts is just a
> tar baby; it is far more productive for biologists to discuss how new
> lineages form in different groups of organisms, and then recognize
> subdivisions of lineages (including the arbitrary concept "species") as
> particular to those groups.  Taxonomy is, in a sense, bookkeeping; such
> accounting procedures can't adequately encompass the processes and
> patterns that describe the splitting of lineages.
> 
> One of the most important points of the Cellinese et al. proposal is to
> remove the use of species names as specifiers.  They discuss reasons for
> this in their Systematic Biology paper, including the need for the
> Phylocode to be independent from the existing codes.  It would make sense
> if the PhyloCode could allow the mention of an existing species name as a
> specifier as a short cut for referring to its type specimen.  But the type
> specimen should be the legal specifier, not the name.
> 
> In his discussion of Rec. 9c, Phil says:
>        "Often the entities that one needs to determine whether they
> belong to a particular clade are not specimens but, rather,
> species or clades.  I therefore suggest the following wording:
>        In order to facilitate the referral of less inclusive clades, as
> well as species and specimens that are not specifiers of the clade
> name, the protologue should include a description, diagnosis, or
> list of synapomorphies."
> 
> But Cellinese et al. are saying precisely that traditional Linnaean taxa,
> including species, can never be precisely compared to clades named under
> the PhyloCode, given that they only have one specifier.  I don't think
> anyone on the CPN could disagree with this -- it is basically the main
> reason why we all want the Phylocode.  So species should be left out of
> this.  It could read:  "In order to facilitate the referral of less
> inclusive clades, as well as specimens that are not specifiers of the
> clade name, the protologue should include a description, diagnosis, or
> list of synapomorphies."
> 
> Phil does not include genera or families as specifiers in his suggested
> wordings, only species.  It is implicitly rank-based thinking to single
> out the species rank for special treatment, and this seems contradictory
> to the principles of the PhyloCode.
> 
> So, on balance, I think that the approaches that Phil and others have
> suggested to the proposal by Cellinese et al. do not address their central
> point, but rather shelve it and simply tinker with other wording.  I am
> not in favor of the modifications that Phil and Michel suggest for this
> reason.  I don't know what a species is, any more than I know what an
> order is.
> 
> The question is to remove species as ranks with special privilege.  Yes or
> no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Kevin Padian
> Department of Integrative Biology &
> Museum of Paleontology
> University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140
> 510-642-7434
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120307/e737af85/attachment.html 