Message 2001-02-0078: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues

Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:31:32 +0100

[Previous by date - Re: RE: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter]
[Next by date - Re: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues]
[Previous by subject - The root dichotomy of PhyloCoders [Re: Fwd: codes]]
[Next by subject - Thoughts on the Paris meeting]

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:31:32 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_nIjNh6XwODdaRlZhsKlGAg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I've just had a look at www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/preface.html; there it =
says:

The starting date of the PhyloCode has not yet been determined and is =
cited as 1 January 200n in the draft code. Names that were provided with =
published phylogenetic definitions before that date are not considered =
to be established under the PhyloCode. The starting date will be =
scheduled to coincide with the publication of a companion volume that =
will provide phylogenetic definitions for many widely used clade names. =
This volume will also provide an opportunity for the authors of names =
that were given phylogenetic definitions before the starting date to =
republish them in accordance with the PhyloCode and thereby establish =
their nomenclatural precedence. The delayed starting date will provide =
the time needed to prepare the companion volume and establish a =
registration system. It will also permit sufficient time for =
experimentation with the PhyloCode with no permanent nomenclatural =
consequences. Some changes in the code will no doubt result. It is hoped =
that many people will avail themselves of this opportunity to explore =
the ramifications of phylogenetic nomenclature in the taxa with which =
they are familiar.

I have not fully understood that... What is this companion volume? Will =
it suggest definitions, or will these be considered established? (In the =
first case, it will initiate endless discussions on how to define =
certain clade names such as Mammalia or Aves, in the latter, it will =
therefore probably make some people very incontent.) Is the companion =
volume already being prepared?

Probably questions like these have already been discussed; does this =
mailing list have archives like the Dinosaur Mailing List's at =
www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive?

BTW, Example 1 to Recommendation 11A still gives Iguanodon anglicus Holl =
1829 as the type species of Iguanodon. This is based on such poor =
material that the ICZN has made I. bernissartensis Boulanger & van =
Beneden 1881 the new type species (31 or so complete skeletons are =
known).

Why is Article 17.1. so restrictive? I suggest to treat all diacritical =
signs like diaereses in Note 17.1.1. Today, scientific names come from =
languages around the globe, for most of which Latin respectively English =
simply hasn't got enough letters. Why not allow Cha=F1aresuchus, =
U=F1enlagia or Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum? (Optimistically assuming =
that your mail reader programs can read this... :-] ) Or tone marks on =
Chinese names? And apostrophes (Articles 17.2. and 18.7.) are very =
useful in transcribing some languages; a few months ago, the Chinese =
sauropod dinosaur Chuanjiesaurus a'naensis has been named, the =
apostrophe indicating that the name of the village near which the fossil =
was found is composed of the syllables a and na instead of an and a. (It =
has lost the apostrophe because of ICZN, of course.)

--Boundary_(ID_nIjNh6XwODdaRlZhsKlGAg)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've just had a look at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/preface.html">www.ohiou.edu/phyloc=
ode/preface.html</A>;=20
there it says:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The starting date of the PhyloCode has not yet been determined and =
is cited=20
as 1 January 200n in the draft code. Names that were provided with =
published=20
phylogenetic definitions before that date are not considered to be =
established=20
under the PhyloCode. The starting date will be scheduled to coincide =
with the=20
publication of a companion volume that will provide phylogenetic =
definitions for=20
many widely used clade names. This volume will also provide an =
opportunity for=20
the authors of names that were given phylogenetic definitions before the =

starting date to republish them in accordance with the PhyloCode and =
thereby=20
establish their nomenclatural precedence. The delayed starting date will =
provide=20
the time needed to prepare the companion volume and establish a =
registration=20
system. It will also permit sufficient time for experimentation with the =

PhyloCode with no permanent nomenclatural consequences. Some changes in =
the code=20
will no doubt result. It is hoped that many people will avail themselves =
of this=20
opportunity to explore the ramifications of phylogenetic nomenclature in =
the=20
taxa with which they are familiar.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have not fully understood that... =
What is this=20
companion volume? Will it <STRONG>suggest</STRONG> definitions, or will =
these be=20
considered established? (In the first case, it will initiate endless =
discussions=20
on how to define certain clade names such as Mammalia or Aves, in the =
latter, it=20
will therefore probably make some people very incontent.) Is the =
companion=20
volume already being prepared?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Probably questions like these have =
already been=20
discussed; does this mailing list have archives like the Dinosaur =
Mailing List's=20
at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive">www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosa=
ur-archive</A>?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>BTW, Example 1 to Recommendation 11A =
still gives=20
<EM>Iguanodon anglicus </EM>Holl 1829 as the type species of =
<EM>Iguanodon</EM>.=20
This is based on such poor material that the ICZN has made <EM>I.=20
bernissartensis </EM>Boulanger &amp; van Beneden 1881 the new type =
species (31=20
or so&nbsp;complete skeletons are known).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why is Article 17.1. so restrictive? I =
suggest to=20
treat all diacritical signs like diaereses in Note 17.1.1. Today, =
scientific=20
names come from languages around the globe, for most of which Latin =
respectively=20
English <STRONG>simply hasn't got enough letters</STRONG>. Why not allow =

<EM>Cha<FONT face=3DArial>=F1</FONT>aresuchus, U=F1enlagia&nbsp;</EM>or=20
<EM>Gracilisuchus stipani</EM><FONT face=3DArial><EM>&#269;i</EM><FONT=20
face=3DArial><EM>&#263;orum</EM>? (Optimistically assuming that your =
mail reader=20
programs can read this... :-] ) Or tone marks on Chinese names? And =
apostrophes=20
(Articles 17.2. and 18.7.)&nbsp;are very useful in transcribing some =
languages;=20
a few months ago, the Chinese sauropod dinosaur <EM>Chuanjiesaurus=20
a'naensis</EM> has been named, the apostrophe indicating that the name =
of the=20
village near which the fossil was found is composed of the syllables a =
and na=20
instead of an and a. (It has lost the apostrophe because of ICZN, of=20
course.)</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_nIjNh6XwODdaRlZhsKlGAg)--

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!