Message 2003-10-0014: Fwd: Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:18 -0400

[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: synapomorphies]
[Next by date - Paris meeting registration]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions fo=]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: Article 11.8]

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:18 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)

David Marjanovic wrote:

>  > >Recommendation 11.5A is currently pointless. It talks about how to nam=
>  > >species, but this version of the PhyloCode will not allow naming speci=
>  > >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.

OK.  I will suggest that an explanatory note be added following Rec. 11.5A.

>  > >Note 17.1.1: Why not treat all diacritics like diaereses?
>  >
>  > I don't think they are comparable.  Diaereses are purely a pronunciatio=
>  > 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. Fo=
>example, German (etc.) =E4, =F6, =FC and Albanian =EB are never diaereses.

This example illustrates why I think that diacritics should not be
treated the same way as diaereses.  Although an umlaut looks like a
diaeresis, its function is different.  It changes the sound of the
vowel it is associated with.  It makes more sense to transcribe
diacritics, which are specific to particular languages, into the
standard alphabet used in Latin so that readers who are unfamiliar
with the language containing the diacritic will have some idea how to
pronounce the name.

>  > 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.

18.7 mandates the deletion of the apostrophe from the spelling of the
name, but if apostrophes are treated like diaereses, as we are proposing,
then one could still include an apostrophe as a pronuncation guide
even though it isn't part of the spelling.  I agree that the current
wording is a bit confusing.  I think the thing to do would be to add
a sentence at the end of 18.7: "However, an apostrophe may be
included as a pronunciation guide (see Note 17.1.1)."


Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
=46ax: (740) 593-1130


Feedback to <> is welcome!