[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" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) 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 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/