Message 2004-10-0019: Re: Panstems

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:33:57 -0400

[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]
Subject: Re: Panstems

>My responses to JRW's comments.<

Thanks for the response, and for the thoughtful justification of your=
position. I guess I feel that taxonomic freedom is somewhat hollow =
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 =
level, and I think we should too.=3D20

>Don't forget superfamilies, subfamiliies, tribes, and subtribes (or =
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 =
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, =
subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, and nominotypical subgenera and subsp=

At the very least, I think this issue=3D20
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 =3D
establish a set of rigid nomenclatural practices, these should be=

>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=
misunderstood my post. I support not restricting definitional types .=

>Glad to hear that!<

11 Sep 2004


Feedback to <> is welcome!