[Previous by date - Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)]
[Next by subject - Re: Vermes]
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:46 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Vermes
> > If phylodoce goes forward, as some like to think it should, I will name Boa > > constrictor > Isn't it _Constrictor constrictor_ now? Yes. > > and Lumbricus terrestris as the two taxa (node based definition) > > of the newly established Vermes. > > The companion volume might well establish _Coelomata_ as a > heterodefinitional senior synonym. See also Recommendation 9C. Just out of curiosity, is somebody already working on the companion volume? > This relates to a current discussion on the PhyloCode Mailing List. It > seems like it might be a good idea to advance a Recommendation for not > converting paraphyletic taxa when there is a pre-existing name for the > monophyletic group (e.g., don't expand _Amphibia_ when _Tetrapoda_ is > available). Good idea. > Maybe there should also be one against conversions that > drastically change membership. Not sure how this should be worded, though > -- tricky. Why? Juristic texts such as the ICZN are full of unclear words like "drastically".