[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Next by date - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:42:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: NJPharris@aol.com
To: tmk@dinosauricon.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
--Boundary_(ID_cFZnSgvwp0ez/CtW/f6Oog)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/14/01 7:18:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:
> > 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.
>
> But less irksome in the long run. It would be far easier to check for
> preoccupied names, to look up particulars on any given name, etc. And
> registration is not a mammoth task, anyway. You go to a webpage and fill
>
With instant arbitration over whether a name has been properly published or
not, and an authoritative declaration that the name is now available for
use--something I should think George would appreciate, given the problems he
has had in the past getting his names recognized.
What bothers me more is the unamendable definitions PhyloCode would introduce
(if I understand it correctly). Say, for instance, I have two genera, A and
B, and I determine on the basis of current evidence that they are sister
taxa, so I define each as a stem-based taxon opposed to the other:
Genus A={type of A > type of B}
Genus B={type of B > type of A}
Now say I go out and dig up weird-ass critter C, which, on the basis of
certain shared characters, I am able to determine is more closely related to
the type specimen of A than it is to the type of B.
Under the current system, I can give weird-ass critter C a new generic name,
to reflect its weird-assedness, and represent its proximity to A on a
phylogenetic tree. But if Genus A has already been *defined* as all
organisms closer to the type of A than to the type of B, and this definition
cannot be amended, then I am *forced* to place C in genus A, and I feel this
goes against the spirit of a genus.
Basically, I think the flexibility currently present at the genus level needs
to be preserved, so perhaps PhyloCode should only apply to suprageneric taxa.
What, then, is a genus? Well, maybe it can just be defined as the first
part of the binomial.
--Nick P.
--Boundary_(ID_cFZnSgvwp0ez/CtW/f6Oog)
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 5/14/01 7:18:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<BR>tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> Right now, if I want to establish a taxonomic name, all I have to do is
<BR>> publish it in a publication, which is suitably defined under the ICZN. I
<BR>> don't have to "register" it anywhere. Under the PhyloCode, the name would
<BR>> >have< to be "submitted" to the database. That right there strikes me as
<BR>> irksome.
<BR>
<BR>But less irksome in the long run. It would be far easier to check for
<BR>preoccupied names, to look up particulars on any given name, etc. And
<BR>registration is not a mammoth task, anyway. You go to a webpage and fill
<BR>out a few forms. It'd take you about 5-15 minutes per taxon</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>With instant arbitration over whether a name has been properly published or
<BR>not, and an authoritative declaration that the name is now available for
<BR>use--something I should think George would appreciate, given the problems he
<BR>has had in the past getting his names recognized.
<BR>
<BR>What bothers me more is the unamendable definitions PhyloCode would introduce
<BR>(if I understand it correctly). Say, for instance, I have two genera, A and
<BR>B, and I determine on the basis of current evidence that they are sister
<BR>taxa, so I define each as a stem-based taxon opposed to the other:
<BR>
<BR>Genus A={type of A > type of B}
<BR>Genus B={type of B > type of A}
<BR>
<BR>Now say I go out and dig up weird-ass critter C, which, on the basis of
<BR>certain shared characters, I am able to determine is more closely related to
<BR>the type specimen of A than it is to the type of B.
<BR>
<BR>Under the current system, I can give weird-ass critter C a new generic name,
<BR>to reflect its weird-assedness, and represent its proximity to A on a
<BR>phylogenetic tree. But if Genus A has already been *defined* as all
<BR>organisms closer to the type of A than to the type of B, and this definition
<BR>cannot be amended, then I am *forced* to place C in genus A, and I feel this
<BR>goes against the spirit of a genus.
<BR>
<BR>Basically, I think the flexibility currently present at the genus level needs
<BR>to be preserved, so perhaps PhyloCode should only apply to suprageneric taxa.
<BR> What, then, is a genus? Well, maybe it can just be defined as the first
<BR>part of the binomial.
<BR>
<BR>--Nick P.</FONT></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_cFZnSgvwp0ez/CtW/f6Oog)--