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>
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



  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!