[CPN] Coments part 2

[David Marjanovic]

By David Hillis.

====================

RE: Proposal by Cellinese et al., "...with Respect to Species"

I read the proposal by Cellinese et al. to remove all mention of "species" from the PhyloCode. Although I appreciate their point that there are some people who reject the distinct nature of species and clades, I would like to argue strongly against their proposal. I have several reasons, some biological, and some practical, for opposing this proposed change.

1. Whatever people may call them, there are clearly two distinct kinds of things in the Tree of Life: lineages and historical groups of lineages that share a common ancestor.These are clearly not ranks of the same kind of entity.  Most biologists equate the former with "species," and the latter with "clades." I think it is a mistake to simply ignore this distinction, and thereby end up treating the real lineages of Life as if they are clades. I think it would cause much greater problems for many more people to treat lineages as if they were clades (as I think would be the only possible result of the proposal), compared to the relatively small number of biologists who do not recognize the existence of lineages (species). The latter individuals can still argue that clades can be recognized down to the level of individual organisms, and the PhyloCode does not interfere with this argument (although it does not explicitly support it, either). 

2. Species are nearly (but not completely) universally recognized by biologists. If species are removed from the PhyloCode, the PhyloCode would become irrelevant to taxonomy (and biology) almost immediately, as far as most biologists are concerned. I believe far more people would reject the PhyloCode as a result of the exclusion of species, than would be attracted to it. PhyloCode already faces an uphill battle for acceptance. The proposed change would mean its end, I fear.

3. The creation and drafting of the PhyloCode was a difficult and time-consuming endeavor. It required compromises among a large number of people. Probably, no one person is satisfied with every aspect of the PhyloCode. But the wording regarding species was extensively discussed and debated, and the current version reflects a broad consensus (even if not perfect agreement) among those who participated. To re-visit this issue, and make such a dramatic change that is strongly opposed by many of the PhyloCode's strongest supporters, is not in the best interest of the PhyloCode or of the community that supports and uses it.

I feel that there has already been too much division, and not enough effort at community compromise, in developing the PhyloCode. I appreciate that it is not written exactly as any one biologist would like. That is because it is the effort of a community, not any one person. The vast majority of biologists recognize the distinction between species and clades, and that consensus is reflected in the PhyloCode. It is written in a way that people who choose to ignore this distinction may do so, but at the same time, it recognizes a distinction that is of importance to the large majority of biologists. It doesn't make much sense to ignore this community majority consensus.

For all these reasons, I oppose the proposal.



David M. Hillis
Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor
Section of Integrative Biology 
University of Texas
One University Station C0930
Austin, TX 78712

Phone: 512-471-5792
FAX: 512-471-3878

dhillis at mail.utexas.edu