Message 2004-10-0014: Re: Panstems

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:46:32 -0500

[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>
Subject: Re: Panstems

Dr. de Quieroz,

Thanks for the response, and for the thoughtful justification of your=
position. I guess I feel that taxonomic freedom is somewhat hollow wi=
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=
level, and I think we should too. At the very least, I think this iss=
should be addressed in the general, and not just in particular instan=
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=

As for restricting the number of definitional classes, I believe you=
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=
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 =
general case and the wording is irrelevant (as implied by the various=
shorthand definition formats floating around); I believe this is the=
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=
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=
abstract), and other kinds definitions are possible and indeed desire=

Thanks again!



Feedback to <> is welcome!