Message 2001-06-0076: Some PhyloCode Considerations

Mon, 14 May 2001 21:07:38 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Next by date - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Previous by subject - Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Next by subject - Species Names in PN]

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Some PhyloCode Considerations

  [ I have a few posts to reply to (to Ken, Philidor, et al.)
but felt I should reply to this one now ... will try to get my
replies out as soon as I can, work is busy and I'm training
someone plus looking for a new place to live -- Saturday was a
boom-day for me :) ]

T. Mike Keesey ( ) wrote:

<<I think this will be a fairly automated process. And it's a
*great* idea -- no more accidental usage of preoccupied names.>>

George Olshevsky ( wrote:
<No, it's a lousy idea. The way things are set up now, one
occasionally petitions the ICZN to >remove< a name; imagine
instead having to petition to >add< a name every time you need
one. This is a clear loss of freedom to name taxa.>

  This is not how the PhyloCode has suggested the petition
process. It would be a simple matter of publishing the
description, sending a copy to the IPN [not established], and
sitting back. Petition works as in ICZN, when a name or
definition is in conflict, and needs a board of revue. I see
this as a process that adds a means of recording information
upon publication instead of "oh, there was a paper that came out
first, and the idea behind the new name is better than the old, one..."

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices


Feedback to <> is welcome!