[Previous by date - Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions for Pan=]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems [NOTE ON REC 10A]]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:12:06 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
In response to Dr. de Queiroz's points: I understand that the restrictions to nomenclature now imposed, or in= tended=20 to be imposed, by the PhyloCode transcend orthography, as in the case= of=20 conversion of preexisting names. By the same token, the ICZN certainl= y does=20 more to limit nomenclatural freedom than restrict orthography in the= =20 strictest sense; if you were to adopt the Anglocentric perspective th= at a=20 "name" constitutes a particular and unique combination of characters,= then=20 the requirements of Latin grammar adopted within that Code exceed the= =20 bounds of nomenclatural freedom by requiring certain spellings and ce= rtain=20 spelling changes. I chose not to highlight these points because you h= ad=20 covered some of them, and because I felt that listing every additiona= l=20 instance would make my posting excessively long, cumbersome, and less= =20 likely to be read carefully. My point was that the existing codes dictate only *reasonable* limits= on=20 nomenclatural freedom, with notable exceptions. And, yes, I did indee= d mean=20 to cite "family-group" taxa, and not "families" as such, as you chari= tably=20 suggest. I never meant to imply that the ICZN adopts a "Principle of= =20 Nomenclatural Freedom." I am well aware that it does not, and we are = in=20 complete agreement (as I wrote in my previous post) that freedom abov= e the=20 family-group level is entirely a result of failure to establish rules= for=20 these ranks. From a "strict constructionalist" perspective, nomenclat= ural=20 freedom is *implied*, as I stated. Indeed, apart from the exceptions= =20 listed, de facto nomenclatural freedom abounds under the ICZN (at lea= st). I guess the "strict constructionalist" approach isn't holding up. As = I=20 recall, Thomas Jefferson insisted forcefully that the Bill of Rights = be=20 formally appended to the Constitution, because, unlike his peers, he= =20 anticipated the day when some of the inalienable rights envisioned hi= s=20 compatriots might not be considered self-evident. I wonder how many o= ther=20 phylocoders would not have questioned "nomenclatural freedom" before = the=20 panstem convention was proposed. The point I was trying to make earli= er was=20 that, rather than simply abrogating nomenclatural freedom, perhaps th= ere=20 SHOULD be an article in the PhyloCode establishing the limits of that= =20 freedom in the document. See my next posts. Jon At 02:33 PM 9/11/04, you wrote: > >My responses to JRW's comments.< > >Thanks for the response, and for the thoughtful justification of you= r >position. I guess I feel that taxonomic freedom is somewhat hollow w= ithout >nomenclatural freedom (apart from orthographic constraints). > > >Orthographic constraints are not the only ones imposed by the=20 > PhyloCode. For example, you won't be permitted to convert "Dinosau= ria"=20 > for a clade within snails. See also my next comment.< > >I believe that >the ICZN (at least) does grant the latter by default, except at the = family >level, and I think we should too. > > >Don't forget superfamilies, subfamiliies, tribes, and subtribes (o= r=20 > perhaps you meant the family group level). Also, it's not really= =20 > accurate to say that the ICZN grants nomenclatural freedom at other= =20 > (e.g., higher) levels. For one thing, it does place restrictions o= n the=20 > form of names (they have to be made up of a single, capitalized wor= d in=20 > the Latin alphabet). For another, the reason that the ICZN has few= er=20 > restrictions at higher ranks is because it largely ignores these ra= nks=20 > and NOT because it adopts a general principle of nomenclatural free= dom=20 > (as evidenced by the restrictions it places on the names of=20 > superfamilies, families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, and=20 > nominotypical subgenera and subspecies)..< > >At the very least, I think this issue >should be addressed in the general, and not just in particular insta= nces. >That is, the intent to do so should be written into the Code, and if= we do >establish a set of rigid nomenclatural practices, these should be >comprehensive. > > >Agreed. That's why I voted for adopting the Pan- convention as a= =20 > general rule. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to h= ave a=20 > standard affix for names associated with every type of definition (= node,=20 > branch, 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!< > >Kevin >11 Sep 2004