The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" System can easily be fixed.: An article from: The Botanical Review
Book Details
PublisherNew York Botanical Garden
ISBN / ASINB0008DTPYG
ISBN-13978B0008DTPY8
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
Sales Rank99,999,999
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is an article from The Botanical Review, published by New York Botanical Garden on January 1, 2003. The length of the article is 5011 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: Promoters of the PhyloCode have mounted an intensive and deceptive publicity campaign. At the centerpiece of this campaign have been slogans such as that the Linnaean System will "goof you up," that the PhyloGode is the "greatest thing since sliced bread," and that systematists are "afraid" to propose new names because of "downstream consequences." Aside from such subscientific spin and sloganeering, proponents of the PhyloCode have offered nothing real to back up claims of greater stability for their new system. They have also misled many into believing that the PhylaCode is the only truly phylogenetic system. The confusion that has been fostered involves several discrete arguments, concerning: a new "method" of "designating" names, rank-free taxonomy, uninomial nomenclature, and issues of priority. Claims that the PhyloCode produces a more stable nomenclature are false, as shown with the example of "paleoherbs." A rank-free system of naming requires an annotated reference tree for even the simplest exchang es of information. This would be confusing at best and would cripple our ability to teach, learn, and use taxonomic names in the field or in publications. We would be confronted by a mass of polynomial names, tied together only by a tree graphic, with no agreed name (except a uninomial, conveying no hierarchy) to use for any particular species. The separate issue of stability in reference to rules of priority and rank can be easily addressed within the current codes, by implementation of some simple changes, as we will propose in this article. Thus there is no need to "scrap" the current Linnaean codes for a poorly reasoned, logically inconsistent, and fatally flawed new code that will only bring chaos.
Citation Details
Title: The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" System can easily be fixed.
Author: Kevin C. Nixon
Publication:The Botanical Review (Refereed)
Date: January 1, 2003
Publisher: New York Botanical Garden
Volume: 69 Issue: 1 Page: 111(10)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
From the author: Promoters of the PhyloCode have mounted an intensive and deceptive publicity campaign. At the centerpiece of this campaign have been slogans such as that the Linnaean System will "goof you up," that the PhyloGode is the "greatest thing since sliced bread," and that systematists are "afraid" to propose new names because of "downstream consequences." Aside from such subscientific spin and sloganeering, proponents of the PhyloCode have offered nothing real to back up claims of greater stability for their new system. They have also misled many into believing that the PhylaCode is the only truly phylogenetic system. The confusion that has been fostered involves several discrete arguments, concerning: a new "method" of "designating" names, rank-free taxonomy, uninomial nomenclature, and issues of priority. Claims that the PhyloCode produces a more stable nomenclature are false, as shown with the example of "paleoherbs." A rank-free system of naming requires an annotated reference tree for even the simplest exchang es of information. This would be confusing at best and would cripple our ability to teach, learn, and use taxonomic names in the field or in publications. We would be confronted by a mass of polynomial names, tied together only by a tree graphic, with no agreed name (except a uninomial, conveying no hierarchy) to use for any particular species. The separate issue of stability in reference to rules of priority and rank can be easily addressed within the current codes, by implementation of some simple changes, as we will propose in this article. Thus there is no need to "scrap" the current Linnaean codes for a poorly reasoned, logically inconsistent, and fatally flawed new code that will only bring chaos.
Citation Details
Title: The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" System can easily be fixed.
Author: Kevin C. Nixon
Publication:The Botanical Review (Refereed)
Date: January 1, 2003
Publisher: New York Botanical Garden
Volume: 69 Issue: 1 Page: 111(10)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
