piranha Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Apparently current collection labels and scientific literature may one day be rendered obsolete. PhyloCode could supplant the Linnaean System of binomial nomenclature in the next 20 years. Properly classified scientific names should convey something of the evolution of an organism. Included in the attachments is a dissenting view that PhyloCode is fatally flawed and unstable. All perspectives will be very useful here that we might grasp this large issue with great clarity. Thanks! LINK 1 LINK 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleozoicfish Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Ha, yes, phylocode is a disgrace and is actually not an overall accepted amongst paleontologists. I know a number of dinosaur paleontologists have been advocating its use. I do not think this will be a popular discussion. I am not sure how many members actually comprehend phylogenetics and systematics; however, it would be an interesting topic to discuss. -PzF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 <shaking hay out of his hair> all i know is if i don't have a word handy that suits my fancy when i'm descripting somepin then i make one up that does. saves thinkin'. but i don't try to make nobody else use my system. that would be arragopompus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 <shaking hay out of his hair> all i know is if i don't have a word handy that suits my fancy when i'm descripting somepin then i make one up that does. saves thinkin'. but i don't try to make nobody else use my system. that would be arragopompus. I think the proper term would be "irretascable"... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamalama Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Consarnit! I'm so mad I look like Yosemite Sam right now.... oooooooo! That rabbit! Ummm... what I am I mad about? -Dave __________________________________________________ Geologists on the whole are inconsistent drivers. When a roadcut presents itself, they tend to lurch and weave. To them, the roadcut is a portal, a fragment of a regional story, a proscenium arch that leads their imaginations into the earth and through the surrounding terrain. - John McPheeIf I'm going to drive safely, I can't do geology. - John McPheeCheck out my Blog for more fossils I've found: http://viewsofthemahantango.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Ha, yes, phylocode is a disgrace and is actually not an overall accepted amongst paleontologists. I know a number of dinosaur paleontologists have been advocating its use. I do not think this will be a popular discussion. I am not sure how many members actually comprehend phylogenetics and systematics; however, it would be an interesting topic to discuss. -PzF That was the motivation for starting the discussion in the first place. The topic was initiated by a professor from OU. I thought it would add something useful here. If a subject is difficult or nuanced that seems a perfect opportunity to enlighten the forum. I am actually in the group you mention that has a less than perfect grasp of the implications here. I understand bits and pieces of it however there is a disconnect not being firmly grounded in cladistics or phylogenetics from the perspective of a PhD Emeritus professor. That is fine to call PhyloCode a disgrace - in fact my knee-jerk reaction is to agree. Because intelligent and reasonable people have differing views it might be instructive to comprehend both before dismissing either. When I brought the dissenting view(s) to the attention of the professor he responded that PhyloCode is better suited to vertebrates (dinosaurs & mammals) than invertebrates or plants. There are factions pushing for varying systems that would address certain disparities that exist for different groups. His summary about this matter was profound. Centuries old solutions expected to tackle 21st century taxonomy. Perhaps it is an attitude of "if it aint broke don't fix it" or just paradoxical arrogance? Surely there is some credence and middle ground where all might find a new tool for the shed. In this instance it would be very useful to learn how to build the clock before telling the time of day. I welcome the comments of our venerable crew at TFF on this fascinating topic. Thanks !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 "That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder." Calvin, to Hobbs What manner of system could be devised that would begin to codify all of nature's complexity, and yet be simple and without exception? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Kingdom, phyla, class, order, genus,species has very little meaning to the clumps of biomolecules floating around here. This is just a discussion of how scientists should best communicate with each other. I suspect phylocode will be as successful as Esperanto has been; the analagy is that an "artificial" language tends not to catch on as well as one with it's own culture attatched, and like it or not, most sciences that use phylogenetics have established cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diplotomodon Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I was wondering when someone was gonna say this. To be honest, I prefer the Linnaean system hands down. In any case it's already engraved into the nether regions of my brain, locked in a safe which is glued down to the floor, guarded by angry leopards in vault sealed with concrete. Even if the classification system is screwed up, I've not a clue on how to fix it. The Linnaean system is prefectly fine because it organizes things. It sorts things out. I think the only reason you could differentiate a Merycoidodon with a Poekilopleuron is by using the Linnaean system cause it shows they aren't related (erm, well, ok, distantly related---I'm about to go into that soon). But that was based on "THE origin." I mean "THIS is what we evolved from!" or whatever. Since evolution doesn't go in a straight line, it twist, turns, stops short, makes a U-turn, and zigzags, we can't do that anymore. Supposedly. So we invent clades. Which is confusing too, because there are conflicting resources on its relation with Phylocode, and that's even before we get into the system itself (which has all this stuff with parvorders, tribes, and varieties). Confused yet? Thanks for starting a hot, controversial topic. I'm starting to feel like Stephen Jay Gould brought this up. What a wonderful menagerie! Who would believe that such as register lay buried in the strata? To open the leaves, to unroll the papyrus, has been an intensely interesting though difficult work, having all the excitement and marvelous development of a romance. And yet the volume is only partly read. Many a new page I fancy will yet be opened. -- Edward Hitchcock, 1858 Formerly known on the forum as Crimsonraptor @Diplotomodon on Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I suspect phylocode will be as successful as Esperanto has been; the analagy is that an "artificial" language tends not to catch on as well as one with Well, said. I have dealt with cladistics a lot. It makes sense if you are talking about evolutionary connections, but it is not pretty or easy. I don't think it will ever catch on outside the systematics community. We here needn't worry. Look at this defintion of mammal, f'rinstance, found on the wikipedia link listed apove as "LINK 2" "the clade originating with the most recent common ancestor of homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758 and Ornithorhynchus anatinus Blumenbach 1800"... Not Pretty. Not easy. The Linnean system, even if it has its flaws, is pretty and easy. My angry leopards are also protecting my Linnean safe... (I didn't read the whole of the third pdf link which explains how the Linnean system can be fixed. Saving that for another day). Wow... piranha, you just got compared to the great SJ Gould! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 Wow... piranha, you just got compared to the great SJ Gould! Long overdue .... Harrumph !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diplotomodon Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I'm confused now. This picture brought it up: So, the red and blue shaded areas are clades. The green bit isn't, and is an evolutionary grade. I don't know what in the world that means, but it's confusing like the rest of this. Let's say a Linnaean kingdom is featured here. Technically, then, the red area would be a phylum. I'm confused why the "phylum" and the "clade" are the same thing. Er...any venture to guess at this?? What a wonderful menagerie! Who would believe that such as register lay buried in the strata? To open the leaves, to unroll the papyrus, has been an intensely interesting though difficult work, having all the excitement and marvelous development of a romance. And yet the volume is only partly read. Many a new page I fancy will yet be opened. -- Edward Hitchcock, 1858 Formerly known on the forum as Crimsonraptor @Diplotomodon on Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Let me try to explain a little bit... The green is not a clade, but the green and blue together are indeed a clade... note how they all go back to one "branch". The blue is also a clade, but at a dfferent level. This drawing actually represents something some of us think about and are occasionally asked to explain. Why are birds dinosaurs? In this drawing, birds are the green, dinos are the blue and say, pterosaurs or crocs can be the red. Birds are dinosaurs becasue they are part of the blue clade. They evolved from something within the green dinosaur clade, so they are dinosaurs. Pterosaurs or crocs are not dinos, but clse relatives. As for your hypothetical linnean kingdom, it is not as easy to show this on a cladogram. Again, with the birds, dinos and crocs... I don't likekingdoms cuz that's way to big a group, but let's make these something like Linnean class...Aves is one, but Reptilia contains both the dinos and the croc. This shows an example of Linnean taxonomy not being supported by cladistics. Hmmm..... it might be easier to explain this on a bar napkin with a PBR and some peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 ...Hmmm..... it might be easier to explain this on a bar napkin with a PBR and some peanuts. That's probably how we got to this point in the first place... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diplotomodon Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Well, thanks for the explanation. I didn't want to distract too much from the subject but taxonomy/classification/etc. is hard to wrap your head around. Yes, it would (probably) be a bit easier on a bar napkin. (But no peanuts please. Some breaded chicken fingers with quality fries. And hold the honey mustard ) What a wonderful menagerie! Who would believe that such as register lay buried in the strata? To open the leaves, to unroll the papyrus, has been an intensely interesting though difficult work, having all the excitement and marvelous development of a romance. And yet the volume is only partly read. Many a new page I fancy will yet be opened. -- Edward Hitchcock, 1858 Formerly known on the forum as Crimsonraptor @Diplotomodon on Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now