I’ve been banging on about Phylocode for 20 years now on SSSF, HF etc and the final version has now been ratified by the ISPN. Seems like most actual biologists are still in the “Thanks I hate it” category.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/phylocode-system-for-naming-organisms/

The first volume is the much bigger Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode, an actual implementation of Phylocode. A real page turner and at 1400 pages it would want to be.
Check out this eyepopper:

I’m most familiar with plant names rather than animal names. Plants are grouped by observable characteristics. Does this phyllocode mean you have to have access to genetic testing material and then computers in order to place/name something? Seems somewhat impractical in field work.

A leaf of the tree of life? code?

buffy said:

I’m most familiar with plant names rather than animal names. Plants are grouped by observable characteristics. Does this phyllocode mean you have to have access to genetic testing material and then computers in order to place/name something? Seems somewhat impractical in field work.

Already in common use to determine relationships of species to each other and even to determine individual species. Similar looking but completely different species have also been discovered in this way. However phyllocode is not involved at this level.

buffy said:

I’m most familiar with plant names rather than animal names. Plants are grouped by observable characteristics. Does this phyllocode mean you have to have access to genetic testing material and then computers in order to place/name something? Seems somewhat impractical in field work.

It certainly means that genetic comparisons will trump all other observations.

dv said:

buffy said:

I’m most familiar with plant names rather than animal names. Plants are grouped by observable characteristics. Does this phyllocode mean you have to have access to genetic testing material and then computers in order to place/name something? Seems somewhat impractical in field work.

It certainly means that genetic comparisons will trump all other observations.

Hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

buffy said:

I’m most familiar with plant names rather than animal names. Plants are grouped by observable characteristics. Does this phyllocode mean you have to have access to genetic testing material and then computers in order to place/name something? Seems somewhat impractical in field work.

It certainly means that genetic comparisons will trump all other observations.

Hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Then it may be a non-anatid that has evolved duck like properties

dv said:

I’ve been banging on about Phylocode for 20 years now on SSSF, HF etc and the final version has now been ratified by the ISPN. Seems like most actual biologists are still in the “Thanks I hate it” category.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/phylocode-system-for-naming-organisms/

I don’t get it. Can you dumb it down for me? Please

Take the sparrow. In early March 2018 I gave the full scientific name of the sparrow as:
Eukaryota Unikonta Opisthokonta Holozoa Filozoa Animalia Eumetazoa Bilateria Nephrozoa Deuterostomia Chordata Craniata Vertebrata Gnathostomata Eugnathostomata Teleostomi Tetrapoda Reptiliomorpha Amniota Sauropsida Reptilia Eureptilia Romeriida Diapsida Neodiapsida Sauria Archosauromorpha Crocopoda Archosauriformes Eucrocopoda Archosauria Avemetatarsalia Ornithodira Dinosauromorpha Dinosauriformes Dinosauria Saurischia Theropoda Neotheropoda Averostra Tetanurae Orionides Avetheropoda Coelurosauria Tyrannoraptora Maniraptoriformes Maniraptora Pennaraptora Paraves Eumaniraptora Avialae Euavialae Avebrevicauda Pygostylia Ornithothoraces Euornithes Ornithuromorpha Ornithurae Aves Neognathae Neoaves Inopinaves Telluraves Australaves Eufalconimorphae Psittacopasserae Passeriformes Passeri Passerida Passeroidea Passeridae Passer domesticus

Last time I checked, it had gained an extra 10 or so new clades on top of those, including Podiata, Obazoa, Choanozoa and others.

So how would phylocode change that? Or would it?

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I’ve been banging on about Phylocode for 20 years now on SSSF, HF etc and the final version has now been ratified by the ISPN. Seems like most actual biologists are still in the “Thanks I hate it” category.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/phylocode-system-for-naming-organisms/

I don’t get it. Can you dumb it down for me? Please

Take the sparrow. In early March 2018 I gave the full scientific name of the sparrow as:
Eukaryota Unikonta Opisthokonta Holozoa Filozoa Animalia Eumetazoa Bilateria Nephrozoa Deuterostomia Chordata Craniata Vertebrata Gnathostomata Eugnathostomata Teleostomi Tetrapoda Reptiliomorpha Amniota Sauropsida Reptilia Eureptilia Romeriida Diapsida Neodiapsida Sauria Archosauromorpha Crocopoda Archosauriformes Eucrocopoda Archosauria Avemetatarsalia Ornithodira Dinosauromorpha Dinosauriformes Dinosauria Saurischia Theropoda Neotheropoda Averostra Tetanurae Orionides Avetheropoda Coelurosauria Tyrannoraptora Maniraptoriformes Maniraptora Pennaraptora Paraves Eumaniraptora Avialae Euavialae Avebrevicauda Pygostylia Ornithothoraces Euornithes Ornithuromorpha Ornithurae Aves Neognathae Neoaves Inopinaves Telluraves Australaves Eufalconimorphae Psittacopasserae Passeriformes Passeri Passerida Passeroidea Passeridae Passer domesticus

Last time I checked, it had gained an extra 10 or so new clades on top of those, including Podiata, Obazoa, Choanozoa and others.

So how would phylocode change that? Or would it?

Phylocode establishes rules that prevent polyphylic clades and paraphylic clades, and establishes clade definitions that will be resilient to incoming evidence

dv said:

Phylocode establishes rules that prevent polyphylic clades and paraphylic clades, and establishes clade definitions that will be resilient to incoming evidence

Yes. could you dumb that down, please?

Possibly an example?

Linnaean taxonomy, which is the dominant system in use for over 200 years, allows groups that are paraphyletc or polyphyletic.

A polyphyletic group contains members that have a common ancestor but exclude many descendents of that common ancestor. For instance, the group of warm blooded Tetrapods was once called Haemothermia, including the birds and mammals and any extinct warm-blooded dinosaurs etc. This might be a useful category for some purposes, but not for the purposes of taxonomy, and bit by bit people have been weeding these cases out of the Linnaean system. Birds are much more closely related to crocodiles than they are to mammals, so under the Phylocode system, such a grouping would be not allowed: any group that contains birds and mammals should also contain any beasts more closely related to birds than to mammals … and also those more closely related to mammals than to birds.

A paraphyletic group contains some but not all of the descendants of a particular group. An example would be Reptilia. Reptilia contains all of the descendants of, say, the earliest Amniotes … except for Mammals and Birds. This too would be not allowed under Phylocode. If you are including the earliest Amniotes then you must include their descendants, the Mammals. And if you’re including Turtles and Crocodiles, then you should also include Birds, since Crocodiles are more closely related to Birds than they are to Turtles.

Phylocode permits only three kinds of clade definitions:

Stem based: “the clade consisting of A and all organisms or species that share a more recent common ancestor with A than with Z”

Example: the clade that consists of humans and all species that share a more recent common ancestor with humans than with orangutans

Derived character (apomorphy): “the clade originating with the first organism or species to possess characteristic M inherited by clade A”.

Example: the clade that originates with the first species to have pennaceous feathers ultimately inherited by modern birds.

Node based: “the clade originating with the most recent common ancestor of A and B”

Example: the clade originating with the most recent common ancestor of humans and pigeons

The last two hundred years have seen huge shifts in taxonomy and phylogeny, as different kinds of morphological and fossil evidence have come to light and been considered. We are now in an era where we can think that the shifting will come to an end as genome comparison becomes more absolute.

One thing that Phylocode has working for it is that it appeals to the kinds of people who edit Wikipedia. It now has about equal time with Linnaean taxonomy on WP .