Message 2003-10-0012: Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:06:41 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18), specifically Megalosaurus]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: synapomorphies]
[Previous by subject - Re: Art. 20]
[Next by subject - Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18), specifically Megalosaurus]

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:06:41 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

> >Article 11.1 [...]
>
> The subordinate clades referred to in the last sentence are not
> specifiers.  Some authors like to cite a clade in addition to a
> specifier to clarify their intent.  This is helpful to readers who
> may not recognize the name of a specifier species but will recognize
> the name of a well known clade that includes them.  The second
> sentence is intended to clarify that, if such clades are cited in a
> definition, they are not a substitute for specifiers.

OK.

> >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.
>
> Until phylogenetic nomenclature for species is codified, many users
> of the PhyloCode for clade names will continue to follow the rank-based
> codes if they name species.  It is for these people that this
> recommendation is intended.

This should be made clearer in the text.

> I suggest that a parenthetical sentence be added at the end of Art.
> 11.9, Example 1: "(However, the apomorphy "flippers" should be
> illustrated or described because it is a potentially ambiguous term
> (Rec. 9E).)" [...] I recommend that Rec. 9E be broadened
> to cover this situation by rephrasing it: "If an apomorphy-based
> definition is used, or if an apomorphy is cited in a qualifying
> clause, the apomorphy should be described or illustrated in
> sufficient detail that users of the definition will understand the
> author's intent."

Very good IMHO.

> >Note 17.1.1: Why not treat all diacritics like diaereses?
>
> I don't think they are comparable.  Diaereses are purely a pronunciation
> guide, whereas some (many?) diacritics are considered to
> change the letter they are associated with into a different letter
> (e.g., in Spanish, n versus n with a tilde).

The distinction between diaereses and diacritics is sometimes difficult. For
example, German (etc.) , ,  and Albanian  are never diaereses.

I think this note exists to conserve the Latin look of nomenclature.
Diaereses were used a lot in Latin in Linn's times (but neither nowadays
nor in classical times -- this may be why the ICZN does not allow diaereses
anymore). This does not hold for diacritics -- although in a facsimile of
Systema Natur (note the ligature, almost unknown in classical times, but
obligatory to Linnus). I've seen a noun ending in -, which was to make
clear that the word was in the ablative and not the nominative.

In French, the use of some diaereses is obligatory, e. g. Nol, Zare.

I see no reason why we shouldn't treat all diacritics like diaereses. We
should, however, recommend to authors of names that transcriptions be sought
instead. In some cases, such transcriptions need not even be invented, e. g.
in German ae, oe, ue are used when for some reason it isn't possible to
write , , .

> However, Art. 18.7 should remain as is because an apostrophe is not
> part of the orthography of the name.

18.7 sounds like it mandates the deletion of any apostrophe.

> >Article 18.2 could contradict Recommendation 17.4A.
>
> Rec. 17.4A concerns conversion of preexisting names, whereas 18.2 is
> about subsequent use of the name after conversion.  There is no
> contradiction.

Oh, sorry. That's clear from the headline of Art. 18.


  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!