[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: Codes]
[Next by date - Possible resolution? Wishful thinking?]
[Previous by subject - Possible resolution? Wishful thinking?]
[Next by subject - Problems with the PhyloCode? [Re: your mail]]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:46:40 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]
Dr. Cantino wrote: > under the traditional system. Furthermore, I accept the majority > view of the advisory group that the symbol will not be mandatory. So As in the "dagger" symbol used by many to designate fossil groups? I was not aware that this was being considered. Perhaps it would be best to bring the phylocode list up to date on the current majority opinions of the advisory group. If we adopted method M with an OPTIONAL symbol (i.e., it is the same name with or without the a standard symbol, say a hyphen), could we all be happy? The hyphen could be like putting "Mr." in front of a name, the name is valid either way. I think I could safely ignore Dr. Cantino's hyphens if he forgives my exclusion of them. Can David Hillis accept that some will refer to -niloticus, other even (shudder) Crocodilus-niloticus, for what he calls niloticus of Crocodilus niloticus or Reptilia niloticus? These amount to the same thing, if we remember that the "-" and the "address" aren't a necessary part of the name... and we *can* do this, because we aren't the ICZN, and we are *not* committed to legislating every last item in the spelling of an article of nomenclature. I know David is willing (as am I, for what it is worth) to accept a "silent" (e.g. part of the name, but not necessary to put it down in every usage) registry number, maybe the "B group" could meet us halfway on this and agree to a "slightly-more-than-silent" hyphen? If we agreed to this, we could end the debate sooner, and get on the irritating technical points, like the addenda I proposed... :) Note: Those who use the hyphens will have to remember that their names are not valid under some other codes (at least the ICZN), but that would have been their problem anyway, wouldn't it? Does anyone else like this? It has the benefit of putting what differences we have about phylogenetic nomenclature back in our own work (and not eachother's) I know that David (and myself, and certainly others) would probably prefer a solution more along the "A group" way of thinking, but I think we would all like to avoid a schism. No one wants to lose the consensus and support which have already grown around the PhyloCode. Think about it. Jonathan