Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

[crossposted to the PhyloCode mailing list for discussuon]

I had written:

<<That would not be a tremendously difficult and problematic issue. Imagine
that Hermann von Meyer has been dead over a century, so someone ELSE will have
to "register" the name FOR him, or do it for themselves.>>

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<Er... yes, of course. Where's the problem?>

  Imperiosity. It would be required to not only get a name published, but to
get it approved for validity by a system of people (or in fact, a _person_),
whom will choose to do so only via application of the definition. While I think
that a name is only really applicable if it is clearly defined, as such species
lack definitions in the draft PhyloCode (dPC) and thus do not get definitions,
unless you start making some real odd choices the dPC doesn't cover and thus
would not, upon active use, be able to "control." 

  Furthermore, that person (note the singular, as suggested by the dPC's
authors) will determine this process, priority, etc. No recommendation in the
current dPC Article 8 currently involves checks and balances. In the past,
problems of application of nomenclature could be handled by the structure of
the rules in the ICZN at the family, genus, and species levels, the levels
which have been regarded historically as the most dynamic and "important" names
in biological taxonomic systems. The authorship, timing, and relegation of
database nomenclature, for example, could become easily out of sync with the
publication record, simply because of this process; those who do not follow the
dPC have no worry, but those who think only those dPC names they go over are
"real" will have BIG issues.

  I might take this further, by arguing that the application of the registrar
and registrator require paper trails, at least digitally, but the purpose of
these has no legitimate, simply legalistic, purpose, for the sake of
publication. Their existence seems superfluous. Yet aside from this, Art. 8 of
the dPC considers (and elsewhere advocates that) names not validated in this
database are not valid, whether published or not. This leads to issues of
synonymy, for when names ARE registered, they can cause a distruption in the
historical record and their argument of precedence as has been historically
recognized by the ICBN and ICZN, such as (close to home, perhaps) finding its
popularity warranting of *Brontosaurus* Marsh, 1879 over *Apatosaurus* Marsh,
1877, or *crassipes* von Meyer, 1857 over *lithographica* von Meyer, 1861.
Issues of priority would either have to be rewritten, or some names, despite
their existence, simply ignored or forgotten. I have suggested, perhaps not
here, that a direct transposition of the current ICZN taxonomic Nomina
Conservanda and such be adopted, simply to avoid this, and all names currently
held valid be considered valid by the dPC officiators. This seems to have been
met with silence. Only new names would have to undergo the registration
process, thereby avoiding the issue of trying to register names out of current
sequence based on some person's personal idealism about what names are better
than others (on that person's OWN considerations). There is no public
discussion of this issue, yet it is simply _done_, or is done by some small
group. Or should we redecide all ICZN/ICBN acts of rejection and conservation?

<Well, either you discuss that with her, ideally resulting in a coauthored
publication.>

  I have discussed this with Dr. Clarke. The results of that discussion are not
public, so I will not air them here. However, the issue of coauthoring in any
case is a problematic area I touched on before: most systematists are out there
working on their own phylogenies, and many will reject the ideas of others
based on their personal view points. There are taxonomic "cliques" (in American
parlance) as much as there are those who are "lone wolves" (more parlance,
going about their own way and rejecting community efforts). That said, there
are some who gather large groups to compound ideas and form real communal
efforts on taxonomy, but these are the exception, not the rule. The tendency
for few specialists in research position dealing in major inter-taxon
systematics (and thus those more prone to reviewing and revising such taxonomy)
tends to cause some, such as latter days' Steel or Gray, to revise swaths of
nomenclature on their own prerogative, or Seeley, often without much as a "by
your leave" and often getting into nomenclature wars. There was in fact a minor
"war" between Joel Cracraft [at the AMNH] and Storrs Olson [at the Smithsonian]
involved in "order-based" avian systematics that eventually led to Cracraft in
rejecting the ranks in favor of the then imminent Sibley and Alqvist, whose
work was also, while lauded, largely rejected by order-based systematists,
including Alan Feduccia. If even these leading researchers couldn't agree on
the nature of systematics, how should we get them, or me and those who disagree
with me or I with them, into a single paper together?

  We need to establish the principles of the system before we start trying to
overhaul another and simply say "here's the only one you have, I guess".
Advocating that the old validities are valid under the new system is one way to
start clean, though it's rather dirty, but that's what happens with history,
just like organizing a harddrive. Today, we have a system founded on ranks, but
surprisingly, a lot of the arguments of precedence and foundation can be found
in the dPC, which honors its forbearers' insight. But while rank-based practice
in the ICZN and ICBN are deeply entrenched, they are not so innate as to render
their removal destructive, simply by revising the elements that refer to ranks,
and allowing all suprageneric names to be establishable as clades, and have
provisions for definitional addenda to the establishment of names, will cause
more ease I think than many people realize.

<My proposal is maybe 10 years -- plus some pressure so that the discussion
actually happens!>

...

<This may not be the right day to say it, but I don't think any of the
rank-based codes can be saved... sorry for the pun.>

  People are human, and whatever our pure-minded motives, names have a property
value, signified by the authorship. They will fight over their property, as
much as they should, since it in the end signifies their scientific
acheivements and establishes their history. Many, such as Dobzhansky, or Lyell,
have been able to establish their names through works of LOGIC and observation
without having to resort to scientific names, but I dare say many of us now are
tied to our names and find it important to hold on them, since they usually
indicate we will be working on those areas for decades to come. Sereno and his
former and current students today established themselves on discoveries that
they are still working on, and this will continue.

  However, the discussion IS happening, in research papers, textbooks, review
papers, and so forth. It will take time, much of it hammering out what the
principles should or could be. In fact, after a decade of de Queiroz and
Gauthier publishing on the abandonment of ranks, we come back to researchers
who use the Linnaean system and yet offer definitions, consider parts of the
ICZN perhaps more suggestive than enforcing, and even some parts which are
suggestions to be more powerful. To get the CZN to agree, of course, is going
to be HARD work, and it requires a compounding response in the biological
community. This will take DECADES (yah, pessimistically).

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/