[edit] DNA barcoding?

Why is DNA barcoding part of this template? It has nothing to do with phylogenetics. --Aranae 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For several reasons. You can't really talk about PhyloCode without mentioning DNA barcoding. DNA barcoding is an application of phylogenetic principles. But if you're still unhappy, we can replace this template with a "systematics" one, in which all taxonomy-related articles clearly would have a place. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point that it pertains to taxonomy and thereby, indirectly, to phylogenetics. I am content with that. I have absolutely no idea what you could mean in stating that DNA barcoding pertains to PhyloCode, but that's certainly not important to their inclusion on the template. --Aranae 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DNA barcoding has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with the PhyloCode. It is the application of a phenetic species concept to all species. That's right: phenetics, not phylogenetics. It uses neighbor-joining. No, DNA barcoding is not an application of phylogenetic principles; no, if you talk about the PhyloCode and mention DNA barcoding, you have changed the topic. Thus, I suggest to take it out of this template. David Marjanović 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PhyloCode?

I suggest to take the PhyloCode – and phylogenetic nomenclature as a whole – out of this template, because they concern nomenclature, not phylogenetics. The connection to phylogenetics they have is only that they take the results of phylogenetics and use them for nomenclature. David Marjanović 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Or rather...

…let's rename this template "Hot topics in biology" or suchlike. That way we could keep the PhyloCode and DNA barcoding in. David Marjanović 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)