Message 2000-09-0012: Re: New critics

Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:20:06 +0200

[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 <>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <>
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.


Feedback to <> is welcome!