Message 2003-10-0008: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:21:29 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: And now my quarterly nitpicking...]
[Next by date - Articles 19 & 20, Table 1, Appendix A]
[Previous by subject - Art. 9.4]
[Next by subject - Article 11.8]

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:21:29 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PML <>
Subject: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

Article 11.1 reads: "Specifiers are species, specimens, or apomorphies [...]
If subordinate clades are cited in a phylogenetic definition of a more
inclusive clade, their specifiers must also be explicitly cited within the
definition of the more inclusive clade." The former makes the latter

Note 11.5.1 is new. I like it. :-)

Recommendation 11.5A is currently pointless. It talks about how to name
species, but this version of the PhyloCode will not allow naming species,
and the preexisting codes won't care.

Article 11.8 has "should" in the first sentence. This sounds as if it were a
Recommendation, and contradicts the second sentence, which uses "must".

Article 11.9 Example 1 has the typo "*Oatriidae*". Also, it should include a
link to Recommendation 9E, because "flipper" is a very ambiguous expression.

Example 1 of Recommendation 11A has "*Megalosaurus bucklandi* von
Meyer1832". This should be "*Megalosaurus bucklandii* von Meyer 1832".
"Beneden" should be "van Beneden" (AFAIK).

Recommendation 11C implies that ichnotaxa ( = taxa based on fossilized foot-
or other prints) are covered by the ICZN. They are not, instead they have
their own parataxonomy, like ootaxa.

Recommendation 11D has "unless doing so would be contrary to recommendation
[sic] 11B". Perhaps "and/or Recommendation 11A" should be added. (Otherwise
we could get, following some old hypotheses, pterosaurs as the basalmost
dinosaurs -- which one author has done, although only in a popular book.)

Example 1 of Note 13.1.1 has "and" in italics.

Note 17.1.1: Why not treat all diacritics like diaereses?

Articles 17.2 and 18.7 are probably meant to conserve what a (Latin) word
is. But I think we don't need this. Long ago I've brought the example of
*Chuanjiesaurus a'naensis* in which the apostrophe indicated that the
Chinese syllables a and na, and not an and a, were involved. (Because of the
ICZN the apostrophe was automatically deleted.)

Recommendation 17A contains the phrase "unless they are contained within the
name of a person, place, or other entity after which a taxon is named". This
makes the rest of the Recommendation almost completely pointless.

Article 18.2 could contradict Recommendation 17.4A.

Article 18.6 contains a space too much in "18.2 ).".


Feedback to <> is welcome!