<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>728</o:Words>
<o:Characters>4150</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Ohio University</o:Company>
<o:Lines>34</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>8</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>5096</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal">Dear CPN Members,</p><p class="MsoNormal">My concerns about the Cellinese et al. species proposal are mostly practical rather than theoretical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The
authors of this proposal consider species to be merely a rank, but many
biologists view them as a distinct kind of evolutionary entity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Furthermore, species names are very widely
used by non-scientists, probably moreso than any other taxonomic names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In order for the PhyloCode to be
accepted by more than just a small subgroup of phylogenetic systematists, it is
essential that it <u>not interfere with clear communication about species.</u><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Furthermore, it ideally should provide
a means for people to integrate species names with PhyloCode-governed clade
names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal">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). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Permitting this </span>would be a
disservice to the systematic biology community and the broader society that
uses scientific names.</p><p class="MsoNormal">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).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>In this paper, Fisher named five terminal clades (each corresponding in
morphology to a previously named species) within a subgroup of the moss genus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Syrrhopodon</i> by converting specific
epithets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>She used node-based
definitions with two to four internal specifiers, each of which is a herbarium
specimen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In each definition, one
of the specifiers is the type specimen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>Her trees showed little to no resolution within each of the five
terminal clades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For
example, specimen X might key out to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">borneensis</i>
in her key but lie outside the clade <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">borneensis</i>
as she defined it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course one
could then coin a new clade name (let’s call it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">papuensis</i>) that would include <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">borneensis</i>
plus specimen X, but the name <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">papuensis</i>
would correspond in content and morphology to the species that is called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Syrrhopodon borneensis</i> under rank-based
nomenclature, and the clade <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">borneensis</i>
would be a morphologically indistinguishable subset of the species <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">S. borneensis</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>This would be a decidedly undesirable outcome from the
standpoint of clear communication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 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)...</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So the likelihood of
discovering subsequently that a name applies to a smaller clade than intended
is greater for terminal clades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>Furthermore, the impact on the outside world is greater when species
names are involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>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”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal">I have concerns about other aspects of their proposal too, but
I’ll cover them in a later message. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Phil</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<!--EndFragment--></body></html>