[Previous by date - REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Registration]
[Previous by subject - Re: Recent modifications of the Code?]
[Next by subject - Re: Registration]
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: Mailing List - Dinosaur <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: qilongia@yahoo.com, Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Registration
I would like to move this discussion from the Dinosaur Mailing List to a more appropriate forum: the PhyloCode Mailing List. Instructions for joing can be found on their website at <http://phylocode.org>; or, what the heck, I'll paste them here: "If you would like to join an internet discussion group focusing on phylogenetic nomenclature, send a message to listserv@ohiou.edu. The message should read: "subscribe PhyloCode" (without the quotation marks). Do not include anything else in the message. In a short time, you should receive an automatic reply explaining how to send messages to the discussion group." --- "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I want to get to the core of what I think is either too lax of a > system or too easy a one to play with, and to point out reasons why the > current recommendations and "registration" need to be tighter, more > controlled. [...] > > David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote: > > <It isn't automated. If you coin a name and want it to be valid, you have > to visit the registration database (available online, of course) and > submit it. The webmaster will register it as soon as you notify him/her of > publication.> > > And what qualifies as publication? David stated below that _some_ > dissertations _could_ be, which is ridiculous: dissertations on their face > have NEVER been treated as a valid source of nomenclature, no MATTER the > number of institutionally available copies there were, or how many people > had a copy of it. This is usually why authors of dissertations tend to > _publish_ their work after the thesis/dissertation has been accepted and > they attain their degree; some publish work from it PRIOR to acceptance, > but that is a moot issue. > > 4.2. Publication, under this code, is defined as distribution of text (but > not sound), with or without images, in a peer-reviewed book or periodical. > To qualify as published, works must consist of numerous (at least 50 > copies), simultaneously obtainable, identical, durable, and unalterable > copies, some of which are distributed to major institutional libraries in > the field so that the work is generally accessible as a permanent public > record to the scientific community, be it through sale or exchange or > gift, and subject to the restrictions and qualifications in the present > article. > > <No more nomina nuda.> > > Actually, if it were to meet the requirements of publication, the name > can still be considered as published in agreement to the code. Does this > name get "forgotten" until the description/definition exists? But the requirements of publication include a definition -- a name published without one would have no formal status. > Or someone actually assigns it a number? It's that "someone" that worries me. I would assume that a number would be assigned automatically by a database algorithm, not a person. This is extremely common (nearly universal) in databases. Which reminds me of a question I asked before but can't recall a definitive answer to: what will the tables look like for the PhyloCode Mailing List? (As a web developer *and* someone who follows systematics, I'm highly interested.) > <Hardly, because the qualifications for validity are so simple. Note that > before actually submitting the name, the author is most likely going to > search the database for a homonym (identical name) or synonym (identical > definition).> > > Possible, doesn't mean s/he will. But you can set up the database so that it automatically rejects an entry with a duplicate name. Trivially easy. That would make it impossible to register a homonym. > Are we including all invertebrates to avoid *Syntarsus* and *Rahova* conflicts > again? I don't see why not; another benefit of on-line registration. > What plants will go in, and who will rename *Gastonia,* the tooth, (_Gastonia_ is a lot more than a tooth, but your point still holds.) > preoccupied by the plant? Now this is a very interesting point. I was hoping that some talk at the Paris meeting would cover this, but I didn't see any such abstracts. There are hundreds of synonyms between the various pre-existing codes, and there can be none in the PhyloCode. It seems to me that this would warrant at least a recommendation, preferrably favoring the older usage and maybe even suggesting how to rename the junior taxon. One possibility I'll throw out there is to suggest adding prefixes to the younger names: perhaps "Phyto-" if covered by the ICBN, "Zoo-" if covered by the ICZN, and "Monero-" if covered by the BC. Thus the animal _Gastonia_ could be converted as Zoogastonia, etc. Perhaps this is unnecessary, but it seems to me it would help speed up and smoothen out the conversion process. > <- Under the ICZN, it's enough to publish a name to make it valid. It's a > nomen nudum in that case, but still. Under the PhyloCode a name cannot > become validly published if it isn't already registered!> > > It can't be a nomen nudum unless it's published. If it's published with > intent, under the code, it's not a nomen nudum. Imagine how this works > out: Mike Keesey publishes his description of a clade system (see > http://dino.lm.com/) in a periodiocal (note, publication criteria doesn't > require peer-review, it says "_or_ periodical" [of which _Prehistoric > Times_ is one]) as a description, using the names *Alpha,* *Beta,* etc. > These, because they show NO intent to name new species but simply form > species/genus and clade groups by explicit use, even offer definitions, > become absolute valid names. Umm, not without type specimens, they wouldn't. (The rest snipped; see the Dinosaur Mailing List Archives at <http://dml.cmnh.org/>.) ===== =====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush