Principios de Taxonomia

212j 7 The Cohesion of Organisms Through Genealogical Lineage (Cladistics)
species is can never be answered. This situation is again counterintuitive, but it is
logical and consistent.
7.12
The Phylocode
In the last ten to fifteen years, there have been efforts to abandon the hierarchical
Linnaean taxonomical system and replace it with a new nomenclature, the
phylocode. The phylocode is a new taxonomic nomenclature that is intended to
abandon hierarchical names (like names for genus, families, etc.) and to replace them
by names for monophyletic clades.
This endeavor is linked most of all to the names Cantino, de Queiroz, Donoghue,
Gauthier and Mishler, among others (http://phylonames.org/). The foundation of
this approach is the realization that Linnaean taxa, as classes, can neither satisfy the
claim of being real objects in nature, nor of being stable names that are valid for a
longer period time. Therefore, there would be no reason at all, except for conservative
clinging to entrenched thought patterns, to continue using Linnaean categories (e.g.,
genus, family, etc.). On the contrary, these categories hamper taxonomy due to a lack
of theoretical foundations, which creates misunderstandings. Thus, the phylocode
consortium aims to replace the binary Linnaean nomenclature with new phylocode
names that reflect monophyletic clades.
If the phylocode does indeed replace the Linnaean system one day, it would have
drastic consequences for nomenclature. For instance, the category of the genus plays
a central role in the Linnaean mode of thinking and, thus, has become part of the
scientific names of all organisms. The binary nomenclature of Linnaeus has survived
for two and a half centuries until today, which is not difficult to understand, as it
provided a significant simplification in bilateral communication compared to pre-
Linnaean times. When you wanted to communicate unambiguously about certain
plants and animals in pre-Linnaean times, the names were long and inconvenient.
Since the time of Linnaeus, however, nobody has had to recite Grossularia, multiplici
acino: seu non spinosa hortensis rubra, seu Ribes officinarium when he means
Redcurrant. Instead, noun designating the genus is followed by an adjective for
the species, and Ribes rubrum makes everything clear.
However, this progress, made 250 years ago, conflicts with the laws of evolution.
The misunderstanding produced by Linnaean nomenclature is the following: by the
assignment of a species and genus designation, the impression is conveyed that
genera of different groups of organisms are comparable to each other. After all,
Linnaeus was convinced that genera existed as units in reality and so would exist even
if there were no humans following the desire to sort species into convenient classes
(Ereshefsky, 1999).
In contrast, the current view is that genera are nothing but human-constructed
sorting units. Furthermore, genera of different animal or plant groups are not at all
comparable with each other. For example, that which is referred to as a genus in more
primitive animal groups represents a much higher category than a genus of birds.