[Previous by date - Re: Registration]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:33:57 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
>My responses to JRW's comments.< Thanks for the response, and for the thoughtful justification of your= =3D20 position. I guess I feel that taxonomic freedom is somewhat hollow = =3D without=3D20 nomenclatural freedom (apart from orthographic constraints).=3D20 >Orthographic constraints are not the only ones imposed by the PhyloC= ode. =3D For example, you won't be permitted to convert "Dinosauria" for a cla= de =3D within snails. See also my next comment.< I believe that=3D20 the ICZN (at least) does grant the latter by default, except at the = =3D family=3D20 level, and I think we should too.=3D20 >Don't forget superfamilies, subfamiliies, tribes, and subtribes (or = =3D perhaps you meant the family group level). Also, it's not really acc= urate =3D to say that the ICZN grants nomenclatural freedom at other (e.g., hig= her) =3D levels. For one thing, it does place restrictions on the form of nam= es =3D (they have to be made up of a single, capitalized word in the Latin = =3D alphabet). For another, the reason that the ICZN has fewer restricti= ons =3D at higher ranks is because it largely ignores these ranks and NOT bec= ause =3D it adopts a general principle of nomenclatural freedom (as evidenced = by =3D the restrictions it places on the names of superfamilies, families, = =3D subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, and nominotypical subgenera and subsp= ecies)=3D =2E.< At the very least, I think this issue=3D20 should be addressed in the general, and not just in particular instan= ces.=3D =3D20 That is, the intent to do so should be written into the Code, and if = we =3D do=3D20 establish a set of rigid nomenclatural practices, these should be= =3D20 comprehensive. >Agreed. That's why I voted for adopting the Pan- convention as a ge= neral =3D rule. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have a stan= dard =3D affix for names associated with every type of definition (node, branc= h, =3D apomoprhy, crown, stem, etc.).< As for restricting the number of definitional classes, I believe you= =3D20 misunderstood my post. I support not restricting definitional types .= .. >Glad to hear that!< Kevin 11 Sep 2004