[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions fo=]
[Next by date - "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific discours=]
[Previous by subject - Re: Rankless classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:09:23 +0200
To: PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions for Panstem/Crown Pairs
> >It does, however, presuppose that even of heterodefinitional synon= yms only > >the oldest one should be used. While rather logical, and a good id= ea, I > >can't remember a place in the PhyloCode where it would say that th= is > >should be done. > > This is covered in Art. 14.2 (and, more generally, in Art. 12.2). Oops, sorry. That's true.