Message 2001-02-0068: Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]

Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:03:12 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter]

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:03:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: "David M. Hillis" <>
Subject: Re: Possible resolution? Wishful thinking? [Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]

At 05:20 PM 2/12/01 -0600, you wrote:
>I think Phil was just referring to optional symbols for clade names.
        Oh, ok, thanks for the clarification.

>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. 
        To clarify: the crux of the proposal is that the name would be valid
if printed without the symbol, but the symbol is still a part of the name
(in a sense). The symbol is not "optional," simply its expression is. The
Code would treat species names without a symbol *exactly* as if they did
have one and vice versa. These would not be treated as equally possible
names, they would be treated AS the same name. In traditional terminology,
either one preoccupies both (i.e., registering _niloticus_ is the same as
registering _-nioloticus_, and either form can be used in print).
        To correct myself, this isn't much like the "silent" registration
number in Option M; you would *never* have to use the symbol if you didn't
want to... although every species would "have" a hyphen, there would be
NOTHING more "proper" or "formal" about including it (unlike the obligatory
thrid and fourth parts of the species name under the ICZN Code). In a way,
it is like having two spellings of the same word, e.g., grey and gray.

>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).
        In compromise to the "B group," it might be best to embrace a
standard format in the PhyloCode.

>If hyphens were used in species 
>descriptions, however, they would not fit the old rules.
        You can, of course, describe species however you like under this
scheme. As long as you follow whatever rules the Code lays down, your work
is valid for the code, whether or not you used the symbol. If someone else
(against all better advice) uses the hyphenated (or whatever) form in a
definition, I would politely suggest that they follow the proper review/
correction procedure of the appropriate code to repair the "damage."

        Maybe this'll work. I doubt it, but maybe the idea will mutate, or
inspire someone to come up with a better solution. We can only hope.


     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
  "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi


Feedback to <> is welcome!