I received this reply from Peter Raven to a question of taxonomy and
classification that was posed to our list serve last April ...
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Raven [mailto:PRaven at nas.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 6:37 PM
To: jperry at uwc.edu
Cc: jmglime at mtu.edu; evert at vms2.macc.wisc.edu; fbarrie at fmppr.fmnh.org;
jr19 at umail.umd.edu
Subject: Re: FW: classification
It's perfectly obvious that I'm never going to write a detailed commentary
on
this, so let me at least send a short answer.
The International Code for Botanical Nomenclature does not extend priority
to
the higher levels in the taxonomic hierarchy, and so in the book in general
I've
tried from the beginning, in 1969, to use names for these groups that would
be
the most familiar and therefore least disruptive. It has always seems to me
that familiar names were best, and would cause no more difficulty to those
learning them the first time that ones mechanically derived according to
self-imposed rules. To use those formulas or assume that names should be
derived in ways analogous to genera, for example, has seemed to me to be
pedantic, although one certainly has the right to do so if one wishes,
following
Cronquist or in more modern time, Jim Reveal. I'll copy Jim on this note
and
also Fred Barrie to see if they have additional points to contribute, or if
I've
missed something about the current Code that applies to names at this level.
Thanks for the inquiry, and best wishes. Peter Raven
jperry at uwc.edu on 04/07/2000 10:42:50 AM
To: Peter Raven at NAS
cc: jmglime at mtu.edu
Subject: FW: classification
Dr. Raven,
I forwarded this to my friend, mentor, former major professor and colleague
Ray Evert. He suggested that I refer it to you. It poses a very interesting
set of questions about taxonomy. We are part of a discussion group
plant-ed at net.bio.net
If you could consider the questions and post your comments so we can all see
them we would be grateful and enlightened.
Thank you,
Jim Perry
-----Original Message-----
From: jmglime at mtu.edu [mailto:jmglime at mtu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 4:21 PM
To: plant-ed at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Subject: classification
Plant-edders,
I need your help in understanding the rationale for the names currently
in textbooks for the divisions/phyla of plants. While the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature does not require that the type concept be
followed up to the phylum/division level, they do recommend it, and it
makes more sense and is more stable. However, introductory textbooks seem
to be following a system for which I cannot find the rationale. On the
one hand, I do not mind using descriptive names like Coniferophyta or
Anthophyta, but I do not understand the origin of the following:
Lycophyta
This is not the traditional descriptive name, which is Microphyllophyta,
nor is it based on the type concept using Lycopodium as the root genus of
the phylum, which would be Lycopodiophyta. What is its origin and what is
the rationale for using it?
Sphenophyta
Same problem. The traditional descriptive name is Arthrophyta. The
type genus (without using fossils) is Equisetum, providing the phylum
name Equisetophyta. What is the rationale for using Sphenophyta?
Pterophyta
Again, why not Polypodiophyta or Pteridophyta.
Why Psilophyta instead of Psilotophyta (except for those putting in in
Pterophyta).
I know where the bryophyte phyla names came from, and have discussed
Hepatophyta, Marchantiophyta, and Jungermanniophyta with liverwort
systematists. There seems to be a preference among the experts and recent
publications for Marchantiophyta, based on Marchantia as the type genus,
as well as being widely known. However, textbooks are using Hepatophyta.
Since the general biology and general botany books now seem to be
switching to divisions (now that the International Code says Phylum is an
allowable equivalent term) and switching to the names above, I find this
to be a more difficult presentation to make to students because I cannot
justify it. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other teachers of plant
science and to hear why these non-type non-descriptive names have emerged
in current textbooks.
Thank you all,
Janice
***********************************
Janice M. Glime, Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
jmglime at mtu.edu
906-487-2546
FAX 906-487-3167
***********************************
---
---
