Message 2001-06-0077: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)

Mon, 14 May 2001 21:53:20 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Some PhyloCode Considerations]
[Next by date - Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Previous by subject - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Next by subject - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)

George Olshevsky ( wrote [because I don't
know if he's subscribed to the PhyloCode list, submitted for
specific distribution]:

<All right, here is the text of the opening paragraph of the
section you sent me to:
<"8.1. In order for a name to be established under the
PhyloCode, the name and other required information must be
submitted to the PhyloCode registration database. A name may be
submitted to the database prior to acceptance for publication,
but it is not registered (i.e., given a registration number)
until the author notifies the database that the paper or book in
which the name will appear has been accepted for publication."

Right now, if I want to establish a taxonomic name, all I have
to do is publish it in a publication, which is suitably defined
under the ICZN. I don't have to "register" it anywhere. Under
the PhyloCode, the name would >have< to be "submitted" to the
database. That right there strikes me as irksome.>

  How this differs is that it would avoid an issue like *Rahona*
being preoccupied, [see in the Appendix A] the name prior to
publication (not more than one month in advance, and anytime
afterward) would be searched to determine synonymy. Same for
definition if you so chose to submit one. If you don't, you
don't have to submit _anything_ to the PhyloCode. It is not
restrictive in refusing publication for not meeting it.
Registration is a matter of publication record, author contact
data, name, definition if so desired, and that's it, sent the
the PhyloCode's registration process. It's a simple matter of
adding it to a computer database, pending subsequent
publication. It's not like your own work doesn't exist prior to
your publishing it or that Mesozoic Meanderings #3 (b) is less
meaningful because it's not published _now_. All you need is the
name, author, and publication record, and voilá! It's that
simple. No restriction.

  Now, believe you me that I for one am impressed by the work
being done for further clarification and expansion of the ICZN
to cover suprafamilial taxa, to recognize genera as the same as
any other taxon, and the explicit use of defining a name as
clear (or broad) as possible. However, I also see (and agree
with Ken on this) that the implementation of the PhyloCode, once
advanced will be tremendously impactive upon those who adopt it
versus those that don't. Unlike the ICZN and ICBN, it is not
authoritative and controlling, but guiding, however those that
use the system versus those that don't will be put to a quandry.
The points I list at the beginning of this paragraph are not
that difficult, and my difference of opinion with Benton and
Kinman are that I do not feel the effect to be catastrophic, but
one as much as the Ediacaran fauna or Dinosaur Rennaissance were
reconstructive. <shrug>

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!