[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Next by subject - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:54:09 +0200
To: PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2
----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Jaime A. Headden" <email@example.com> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:51 AM > Jon Wagner (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > > <10.2. Apart from the proceedures established in Article 9, 10.1, 1= 5, 17, > 18, and Recommendation 10 A [etc.], no compulsion, restriction, or = rule of > any kind may prevent authors from constructing and defining names = as they > see fit.> > > Perhaps this should be "In accordance to ..." instead of "Apart f= rom > ..."? I don't think so. "Apart from" makes clear what the rule is (namely t= he proposed article 10.2), and what the few exceptions from the rule are (Articles 9 and so on). > "In accordance to ..." might prevent some abuse of the proposed r= ule. Perhaps the following word order would be even clearer: "No compulsion, restriction or rule of any kind may prevent authors f= rom constructing and defining names as they see fit, except for the proce= dures established in Article 9, [...]."