Message 2001-02-0067: Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]

Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:20:50 -0600

[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]
[Next by date - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]
[Previous by subject - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking?]
[Next by subject - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:20:50 -0600
From: "David M. Hillis" <>
Subject: Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]

I think Phil was just referring to optional symbols for clade names. 
However, I don't have any objection to optional marks, as long as the 
rules don't restrict me from using one form of name for both the old 
and new codes. If someone wants to put hyphens in my names, there is 
really nothing that stops them from doing that, even now (other than 
the demands of editors, of course). If hyphens were used in species 
descriptions, however, they would not fit the old rules.

>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
>	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

David M. Hillis
Director, School of Biological Sciences
Director's office: 512-232-3690 (FAX: 512-232-3699)
Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor
Section of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Research Office: 512-471-5792
Lab: 512-471-5661
FAX: 512-471-3878


Feedback to <> is welcome!