tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post3252263153059679225..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: Reference Review: Messing about with MildewsChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-59307793365044817952007-11-13T14:21:00.000+08:002007-11-13T14:21:00.000+08:00Ha, that's kind of funny. (Or maybe it's just me.)...Ha, that's kind of funny. (Or maybe it's just me.)Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-54869679889423694092007-11-09T17:30:00.000+08:002007-11-09T17:30:00.000+08:00Those aren't ranks, any more than "set" and "subse...<I>Those aren't ranks, any more than "set" and "subset" are ranks (or "group" and "subgroup", "taxon" and "subtaxon", etc.).</I><BR/><BR/>Technically not, yes, but in my experience the way words like "subclade" are structured tends to lead people who aren't familiar with the terms to mistake them for some sort of formal ranking. I have seen comments like "I'm not sure how to tell if this is a clade or a subclade". Unfortunately, there's no way around this misunderstanding except further education.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-82532912377843737012007-11-09T15:56:00.000+08:002007-11-09T15:56:00.000+08:00Whoops, one other comment:I usually end up having ...Whoops, one other comment:<BR/><BR/><I>I usually end up having to refer to "clade A" and "subclade B", invoking an even more arbitrary sort of ranking</I><BR/><BR/>Those aren't ranks, any more than "set" and "subset" are ranks (or "group" and "subgroup", "taxon" and "subtaxon", etc.).Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-82119454374431224922007-11-09T14:05:00.000+08:002007-11-09T14:05:00.000+08:00Thanks for the plug! Now I'll have to oblige with ...Thanks for the plug! Now I'll have to oblige with that <I>PhyloCode</I> comment (seeing as I am the moderator on <A HREF="http://phylonames.org/forum/" REL="nofollow">its forum</A> as well as <A HREF="http://phylocode.org/" REL="nofollow">its website</A>'s developer).<BR/><BR/>The <I>PhyloCode</I> does favor stability of definition over stability of content. But, as others have pointed out, what's so great about stability of content? Would we really want to be saddled with a <I>Reptilia</I> that includes sharks and frogs, a <I>Primates</I> that includes bats, or a <I>Homo</I> that includes chimpanzees? These were all Linnaeus's original usages, after all. Content changecan be <B>good</B>--if it reflects changes in our understanding of relationships, not changes in subjective opinions.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not completely dismissing your concern. There are examples of phylogenetic definitions out there that, under some hypotheses, would change things in an unproductive way. Fortunately, the latest draft of the <I>PhyloCode</I> features some fairly substantial additions to <A HREF="http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art15.html" REL="nofollow">Art. 15</A> with this kind of stability in mind. In short, it specifies how, under certain circumstances, authors may emend preexisting definitions that have turned out to have unfortunate consequences.<BR/><BR/>Also worth mentioning: the rank-based codes favor stability of definition over stability of content, too! They have very little to say about content, really. Include the type and whatever else you want. That hasn't exactly made for a lot of stability over the past few centuries. With the <I>PhyloCode</I>, though, content is dictated by phylogeny, so as our understanding of that stabilizes, the taxonomy will follow.<BR/><BR/>And it seems to me that ranks (again, possibly excluding species) are a terrible indicator of biodiversity. Look at the orders Struthioniformes and Ornithischia, or your average vertebrate genus and your average insect genus. Surely telling laypeople that these are equivalent units is not doing them any service.<BR/><BR/>Well, at any rate, hopefully I'll be able to provide a stronger argument when my <I>Names on NEXUS</I> utility (mentioned <A HREF="http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-first-paper.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>) is available.Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.com