NIXON, KEVIN C. L. H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. - The phylocode is fatally flawed and the current Botanical Code can be easily fixed.
Promoters of the so-called "phylocode" have mounted an
intensive and deceptive publicity campaign. At the centerpiece of this
campaign have been slogans such as that the Linnaean System will
"goof you up", that the phylocode is the "greatest
thing since sliced bread" and that systematists are
"afraid" to propose new names because of "downstream
consequences." Aside from such subscientific spin and
sloganeering, proponents of the PC have offered nothing real to back
up claims of greater stability for their new system. They have also
misled many into believing that the PC is the only truly phylogenetic
system. The confusion that has been fostered involves several discrete
arguments, concerning 1) a new "method" of
"designating" names; 2) rank-free taxonomy; 3) uninomial
nomenclature; 4) issues of priority. Claims that the phylocode
produces a more stable nomenclature are false, as shown with the
example of paleoherbs. A rank-free system of naming requires an
annotated reference tree for even the simplest exchanges of
information, would be confusing at best, and would cripple our ability
to teach, learn and use plant names in the field or in publications.
We would be confronted by a mass of polynomial names, tied together
only by a tree graphic, with no agreed upon name (except a uninomial,
conveying no hierarchy) to use for any particular species. The
separate issue of stability in reference to rules of priority and rank
can be easily addressed within the current codes, by implementation of
some simple changes as will be proposed here. Thus, there is no need
to "scrap" the current Linnaean Code for a poorly reasoned,
logically inconsistent, and fatally flawed new code that will only
bring chaos.
Key words: Linnaean, paleoherbs, phylocode, polynomial, sloganeering, uninominal