[Previous by date - Re: Stem-based taxon definitions]
[Next by date - Re: Stem-based taxon definitions]
[Previous by subject - Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Next by subject - Art. 11.5]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:17:40 -0400
From: "Moore, Gerry" <gerrymoore@bbg.org>
To: "'Phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu'" <Phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Art 10.1
Art. 10.1 states that "[a] preexisting specific or infraspecific epithet may not be converted to a clade name." In botany many generic names in use are spelled identically to species epithets. For example, the name Paradoxa is in current use for a genus of fungus. However, the name "paradoxa" is commonly used as a specific (and infraspecific) epithet. (We botanists apparently find a lot of things to be contrary to our expectations.) Doesn't Art 10.1 ban the conversion of Paradoxa to a clade name? This rule would result in great instability when names used in the old system are converted to the new system. In zoology, things are even worse since tautonyms are perfectly acceptable (though rare). Doesn't the existence of Rattus rattus (rat) prohibit the conversion of Rattus to a clade name under Art 10.1 (in other words rats will have to be called something else other than Rattus under the Phylocode)? To me the goal of Article 10.1 -- preventing homonomy between clade names and species (and infraspecific) epithets -- is not desirable as it would cause great instability since many widely used generic names would be banned from use (since they are also used as epithets). Also, Note 10.1.1 seems unworkable since it may oftentimes be impossible to know if someone did this deliberately or not. Why is Article 10.1 needed? Cheers, Gerry Moore Brooklyn Botanic Garden