[Previous by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Previous by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: List PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=
Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) wrote: <Both approaches seem equally reasonable. My interpretation: perhap= s this is a reason for naming the clades bounded by extant organisms in pairs (see TMK=92s first comment, above), as I have myself suggested = (though not clearly distinguishing this issue from the related one about how = the names are to be formed).> Would this not result in the same form of excessive taxonomy we are trying to argue against employed in Linnaean taxonomy? Mandated pairs= of clades, which are essentially identical by content, is excessive. <The PhyloCode is not necessarily trying to get away from standard affixes=97only from tying particular affixes to particular ranks.> One could say (as above) that this is essentially the same problem. Linnaean taxonomy would attempt to use the clades named in a hierarch= ical setting, and simply apply mandated ranks to each ... it would likely = be inescapable ... there ARE Linnaean taxonomists out there, more than h= alf of biology being comprised of those that follow such a system in thei= r nomenclature. Standardized affixes for types of clades is unneccessar= y ... if one clade, as Mike and I have said before, why not ALL forms of cl= ade? Why this ONE form of clade idea? What stops us from actively affixing= all forms of clades for PhyloCode? <To solve this problem, people have suggested conventions involving hyphens and/or double capitalization. Thus, Panthera would not be a panstem name, but PanThera (or Pan-Thera) as well as PanPanthera (or Pan-Panthera) would.> Why not use diacritics? Using other characters to form names, when hyphens refer to a combination of two words, would seem less problema= tic. Capitals within words, rather than at the beginning, ignores nearly a= ll methods of naming clades outlined by the PhyloCode. <That name would have to be redefined so that it applied to the total clade of Arthropoda (remember, the PhyloCode is not retroactive).> Doesn't the Code recommend following use and ideal of the definitio= n as originally coined, not redefining based on a later, younger concept o= f the addition of pan-? It would seem that applying one's own idea to an ol= der name can be a slap in the face of the researcher, obviating his/their= use of the name, thereby rejecting his taxonomy. Say, researcher Grellet-Tinner has a species named for him ... can = we use _grellet-tinneri_ now, and thereby review all previous emmendatio= ns made to nomenclature using hyphens? It's possible once, might as well= . I'd say, if we WEREN'T out to revise historical taxonomy to conform to ne= w ideas, including old names, then we're coining NEW names, replacing t= heir older, used, and historical elements with OUR own ... replacing their= work to satisfy out own ideas. What justice is there in saying that adding hyphens or revising names or definitions will benefit science when it screws with the historical record -- especially since the formulators= are in a minority opinion? <This seems like a minor drawback.> This seems to be along the same lines as all the other drawbacks. Capitalization within the word (or forming combinations of words sepa= rated by hyphens) is a big issue, and if this would be the solution, then i= t only compounds a problem taxonomy has attempted to prevent over the y= ears. <A standard crown prefix is certainly possible.> If there are standard affixes, taxonomy takes a step backwards in preventing free development of words to represent labels of clades. T= he type of clade can be referred to by the nature of the definition, or = by a label preceding the name, and used at the first instance of the name = in a paper, thereby giving a reference for subsequent useage. Cheers, =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to mak= ing leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to = do. We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world arou= nd us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) =09 =09=09 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20