Message 2001-02-0064: Re: Fwd: Re: Codes

Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:56:18 -0500

[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>
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



Feedback to <> is welcome!