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articles and stories praising the "new" PhyloCode as a much-welcome, even necessary, advance to the "terribly outdated" taxonomic classification system currently in use, which "ignores decades of advances in molecular phylogenetics and does not reflect evolutive relationships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is becoming a mediatic thing, so that systematists in disagreement with its adoption are branded as "reactionary" and "outdated", not only by the colleagues with whom they disagree but also by the "mainstream media" and possibly the public influenced by it.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.
The success of the Linnean taxonomic system has been its stability. The proof is that the system has persisted for more than two centuries and it is still useful.
Stability was granted because -among other reasons- any change that wanted to be performed on the nomenclatural structure had to be done formally within the academic world.
Paradoxically, it resulted to be a double-edged sword:
1- On the one hand, it enabled communication between researchers, as everybody has to attach to a same nomenclatural framework.
2- But on the other, it really hampered any change, making the Linnean system to look old and rigid.
Turning the ordering of biodiversity in a "matter of opinion" as presented in media is clearly counterproductive. We all must be aware that embracing an unstable phylocode system that tends to name any sister-clades relationship, may have deleterious effect on knowledge transference and mutual understanding.
Now there are a series of journals specialized in fostering formal taxonomic changes. These publications ease taxonomic rearrangements in our raping-changing world, transferring phylogenetic results into manageable taxonomic units, and helping taxonomy to keep up to date.
Let's do not defenestrate what has been achieved over so many years!
You are perfectly right. But this is but one more expression of the general trend to formalize everything, to dissociate scientific research from the observable facts and make the conclusions dependent upon preconceived philosophical (or pseudo-philosophical...) theorems or simply whims, appropriate to form the "standards" required to obey by everybody and enabling effective censorship ("scientific circles do not, in fact, aim at the scientific truth, but at the situation where all their members would think the same" - Fred Hoyle)!
I totally agree with G. Hassemer! Until the discussion on Phylocode is academic, we can improve our opinions, even if opposite, but please skip political stuff: also Covid -19 became reason for discussion and political controversies.....The risk is that of finding ourselves in cloying discussions on the edge of ridicule.
I mainly disagree with you that the discussion on nomenclatural standards must be restricted to the academy. After all, names and concepts of biological entities are also used by professionals and researchers outside the academic environment. The problem is how the discussion is presented by the "non-specialized media".
Thiago: I do not know whether I agree or disagree with you: it depends upon what do you mean by "academic environment"? Anyway, scientific questions should be resolved by specialists in a particular field, e.g. theoretical or "technical" problems of taxonomy by taxonomists. So, in our present context it is irrelevant by whom "biological entities are ... used": the question is who should define them (I use a computer every day, but will not enter into discussion with computer-specialists how a computer should be built!).
The success of the Linnean taxonomic system has been its stability. The proof is that the system has persisted for more than two centuries and it is still useful.
Stability was granted because -among other reasons- any change that wanted to be performed on the nomenclatural structure had to be done formally within the academic world.
Paradoxically, it resulted to be a double-edged sword:
1- On the one hand, it enabled communication between researchers, as everybody has to attach to a same nomenclatural framework.
2- But on the other, it really hampered any change, making the Linnean system to look old and rigid.
Turning the ordering of biodiversity in a "matter of opinion" as presented in media is clearly counterproductive. We all must be aware that embracing an unstable phylocode system that tends to name any sister-clades relationship, may have deleterious effect on knowledge transference and mutual understanding.
Now there are a series of journals specialized in fostering formal taxonomic changes. These publications ease taxonomic rearrangements in our raping-changing world, transferring phylogenetic results into manageable taxonomic units, and helping taxonomy to keep up to date.
Let's do not defenestrate what has been achieved over so many years!
Roman: I agree with some parts of your commentary, especially regarding definitions of biological entities reflecting epistemic claims made by specialists in a particular field of knowledge. Biologists are (or should be) considered epistemic authorities when we are dealing with the topic of "definition of biological entities".
I disagree with you, however, on the irrelevance of name usage and the underlying motivations for establishing classification schemes. Actually, one of the main issues on biological codes, nomenclatures, standards (the current ones or the PhyloCode) is that they are mainly ignorant of the motivations for name usage and classification in the innumerous domains of inquiry in which biological names are applied. Which, in my understanding, is paradoxical, since one of the main goals for establishing naming rules, standards, and schemes is to enhance communication and reproducibility among communities of inquiry.
Hence, the whole discussion of codes pertains, mainly, to the realm of name usage, although the underlying role of epistemic authorities in the definition process is necessary.
Thiago: To be frank, your logic seems to me a little bit... illogical! Let's turn back to my example with computer: I use computer every day, although I know almost nothing of how it works; moreover, also those programs I use are known to me only to the extent that I know which button on the keyboard I must push or which "icon" on the monitor to "click" wishing to save, delete, or produce some of those effects I frequently need to produce - but I do not know, and there is no need for me to know, why just "ALT+144" produces the letter É, or how "Caps Lock" causes all following letters to appear as CAPITALS . Even to have this minimum "knowledge" necessary to use computer for my purposes, I must have learned it - for me not so easy! And just therefore any (unfortunately, much too frequent!) introduction of a new, "improved", version of WORD, EXCEL, COREL makes me virtually furious: it means for me further senseless loss of time when I will need to learn a new terms, new procedures to do the same what I have already "mastered" before! With taxonomy it is still more so: for a non-taxonomist, the only thing he/she must really know is the analogue of "my" knowledge what the "shift", "page up" or ">" mean: he/she must know what is the name of the animal or plant interested to him/her and - sometimes - whether this name refers to, e.g., a species, subspecies or some other category, or what are the general rules of classification and nomenclature. You say, users "are mainly ignorant of the motivations for name usage and classification in the innumerous domains of inquiry in which biological names are applied" - you are right, but why is it so? There are three causes: 1) they usually do not need to know these motivations (like I do not need to know the motivation behind the chemists rule resulting in considering CH3COOH as acid, CH3OH as alcohol, and NH4OH as base, I only need to know how to apply this rule in simple situations interesting to a non-chemist); 2) most non-taxonomists are simply not interested in such questions (or - still worse - they do not know that they are ignorant and just therefore consider themselves entitled to express their authoritative opinions as in the "mediatic debate" referred to by Gustavo); 3) the main cause of the confusion are just frequent attempts to change the established rules ("molecular taxonomy", restrictive meaning of monophyly, "current usage" instead of priority in nomenclature, &c.). If, as you say, many users have not managed to learn few simple rules of "traditional" taxonomy and nomenclature, why do you expect that the eventual introduction of a totally disparate new "code" can help? Realistically thinking, it is evident that the real effect would be so total confusion that even taxonomist would lose orientation! As Polish proverb says, "lepsze" jest najgorszym wrogiem dobrego ["better" is the worst enemy of good], so if ain't broke, don't fix! But anyway, when my computer got spoiled, I hired a computer specialist to repair it, and if rules of taxonomy really need improvement, let taxonomists (not computer specialists or anybody else) introduce the improvements!
Regarding the media blitz surrounding the release of PhyloCode 6.0, I think Public Enemy said it best: "Don't believe the hype."
For a more detailed critique, see
Brower, AVZ. 2020. Dead on arrival: a postmortem assessment of “phylogenetic nomenclature”, 20+ years on. Cladistics 36: 626-636.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media