Message 2000-07-0006: Art 10.1

Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:17:40 -0400

[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" <>
To: "''" <>
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?

Gerry Moore
Brooklyn Botanic Garden


Feedback to <> is welcome!