[Previous by date - Re: Genera as clades, Re: clades and species]
[Next by date - Re: species and clades]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: hands off genera?]
[Next by subject - Galtonia (a test case?)]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:20:09 -0500
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: species and clades
David Hillis wrote: >Such a rule is unnecessary...it may not be clear to everyone on the >listserv that the plan is to include rules for naming species before >the code is adopted. To do otherwise would indeed create massive >problems. We just haven't settled on those species-naming rules yet. >We've had extensive discussions about this point in the past, and >many (most?) of us would not want to adopt any code that didn't >include rules for both clades and species. We just haven't written >the species rules yet. Whoa! This statement may seem like deja vu for those who were involved in the discussion last March. To make what could be a very long story as short as possible, here is my understanding of what was decided: In February, 1999, an e-mail vote was taken among the advisory group, and it was resolved that the PhyloCode should eventually include rules governing species names, but that "the first version of the code should be restricted to clade names" (from my message of 2/26/99). In the course of discussion on the listserv a year later, it became apparent that some members of the advisory group interpreted "version" differently than others. David's statement (above) reflects his understanding that "version" meant draft--i.e., the first draft placed on the web for public comment would be restricted to clade names, not the first implemented version of the code. His understanding was shared by at least two other members of the advisory group, but many others interpreted "version" to mean implemented version--i.e., that the code would initially be implemented for clade names only, and rules for species names would be written and implemented subsequently. [For those who were part of the discussion back then and kept the messages, see my message of March 23, 2000. entitled "re: problem?"] The upshot is that the vote was ambiguous because people who ostensibly voted the same way had differing understandings of what they voted for. It was decided that we would revisit the issue at some future date before implementing the code. There has been little if any discussion of the issue since then, but I suspect that opinions on the subject are just as strong and divergent as they were last March. Phil Philip D. Cantino Professor and Chair Department of Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 U.S.A. Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126 Fax: (740) 593-1130 e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu