[Previous by date - Re: Registration]
[Next by date - RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:46:32 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
Dr. de Quieroz, Thanks for the response, and for the thoughtful justification of your= =20 position. I guess I feel that taxonomic freedom is somewhat hollow wi= thout=20 nomenclatural freedom (apart from orthographic constraints). I believ= e that=20 the ICZN (at least) does grant the latter by default, except at the f= amily=20 level, and I think we should too. At the very least, I think this iss= ue=20 should be addressed in the general, and not just in particular instan= ces.=20 That is, the intent to do so should be written into the Code, and if = we do=20 establish a set of rigid nomenclatural practices, these should be= =20 comprehensive. As for restricting the number of definitional classes, I believe you= =20 misunderstood my post. I support not restricting definitional types, = or the=20 choice and application of names (other than for the sake of continuit= y). I=20 am sympathetic to Dr. Padian's point (by the way, he favored two form= ats,=20 node- and stem-, in his Paris talk), but I do not agree. I feel that = PN has=20 moved past the idea that the wording of a definition somehow invokes = a=20 general case and the wording is irrelevant (as implied by the various= =20 shorthand definition formats floating around); I believe this is the= =20 mindset that inspired Dr. Padian's suggestion. Instead, the wording o= f the=20 definition is paramount. As such, not all node- and stem-based defini= tions=20 are equal, the various classes of definition are just that, classes (= see my=20 point about the so-called "stem-modified node-based definion" in my= =20 abstract), and other kinds definitions are possible and indeed desire= able. Thanks again! Jon