The recent official publication of PhyloCode has caught my attention, not for new arguments being presented for a system that has already been extensively discussed and, as I see it, whose downsides and problems surpass the envisioned advantages, but surprisingly because of the mediatic coverage it is currently receiving. So many of the major newspapers, which are generally regarded as part of the "mainstream media", are publishing articles and stories praising the "new" PhyloCode as a much-welcome, even necessary, advance to the "terribly outdated" taxonomic classification system currently in use, which "ignores decades of advances in molecular phylogenetics and does not reflect evolutive relationships of organisms". Anyone familiar with the current practices in Systematics is aware that this is malicious disinformation.

In talking with colleagues some have resonated with my impression that, instead of an academic debate, the PhyloCode is becoming a mediatic thing, so that systematists in disagreement with its adoption are branded as "reactionary" and "outdated", not only by the colleagues with whom they disagree but also by the "mainstream media" and possibly the public influenced by it. This type of political interference is negative to Science, and certainly very much unwanted by those endeavouring to advance, improve and refine human understanding of Earth's biodiversity and Natural History.

I think this debate should be kept academic, free as much as possible from this type of political interference. Your thoughts on this topic are very much welcome.

More Gustavo Hassemer's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions