[Previous by date - Possible resolution? Wishful thinking?]
[Next by date - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:56:18 -0500
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Codes
Various recent postings have discussed whether or not the PhyloCode will = result in parallel and thus competing "systems." While I agree with those = who argue that the PhyloCode is not intended to create a parallel system = of names, one thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed in these = discussions is the fact that the co-existence of traditional and phylogenet= ic codes will inevitably result in some degree of parallel systems. This = will happend when taxonomic changes occur in which the correct name under = the traditional code is no longer the same as the correct name under the = PhyloCode. For example, if a name has been established under both codes = and somebody "lumps" the taxon to which it refers with another taxon, the = name might continue to refer to the same taxon under the PhyloCode but to = refer to a different taxon under the traditional code. The only way to = avoid this is to replace the traditional code with the PhyloCode rather = than allowing them to operate in parallel (though I agree that there is = effectively no chance that this would happen). I guess my hope is that = people will see from these cases that the PhyloCode works better in terms = of promoting nomenclatural stability, and then do the "upgrade" sooner = rather than later. =20 Kevin