[Previous by date - Fwd: New critics]
[Next by date - RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by subject - Re: Nipping the bud]
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:20:06 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: New critics
> The PhyloCode includes several recommendations that are in the spirit > of those suggested by David Marjanovic. See, for example, > Recommendations 9A-9D and 11B-11E. They really are, only I would change the phrase "are likely to be" to something like "could possibly be"/"have been suggested to be"/..., because there are people who only consider their own phylogeny to be "likely". In Recommendation 11C, I would include ootaxa ( = fossil eggs) next to ichnotaxa and form genera (though I don't think anyone will ever try to use oospecies as specifiers). As far as I know, ootaxa are not governed by any code, the rules used by ootaxonomists seem to be rather informal. > The naming system represented by Sapiens Homo Hominini Homininae > Hominidae..., which was proposed by Brent Mishler, is not under > consideration for adoption in the PhyloCode. It is therefore very > misleading for Benton to have focused on this system. The various > naming methods for species that have been considered for the > PhyloCode are summarized in Systematic Biology 48: 790-807 (1999). I'll see if I can get this.