[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> </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> </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> </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> </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 & van Beneden 1881 the new type = species (31=20 or so complete skeletons are known).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </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 </EM>or=20 <EM>Gracilisuchus stipani</EM><FONT face=3DArial><EM>či</EM><FONT=20 face=3DArial><EM>ćorum</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.) 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)--