[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - No Postings?]
[Next by subject - Nomenclatural Freedom IS the issue]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:18:34 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Nomenclatural Freedom
A recent thread on this discussion list has been that of nomenclatura= l =3D freedom. Some participants have argued that adopting a universal = =3D convention for the names of particular classes of clades (e.g., the P= an =3D convention) goes against nomenclatural freedom and therefore should n= ot be =3D adopted in the PhyloCode. I have argued that nomenclatural freedom i= s not =3D a central principle of either the PhyloCode or the rank-based codes, = and =3D that therefore the use of a universal convention for the names of = =3D particular classes of clades is consistent with the regulatory functi= on of =3D the PhyloCode. I want to emphasize this point by pointing out that = =3D adopting a principle of nomenclatural freedom, either exlicitly or = =3D implicitly, is really at odds with the adoption of any nomenclatural = code =3D whatsoever. If a person is truly interested in promoting nomenclatur= al =3D freedom, that person should reject all codes, including the PhyloCode= , and =3D adopt instead an approach similar to that described by H=3DE4rlin and= =3D Sundberg. In that approach, far fewer restrictions are placed on tax= on =3D names than are accepted even by those participants in this discussion= who =3D claim to advocate nomenclatural freedom. Authors can use existing na= mes =3D or coin new ones as they see fit, and they are free to redefine exsit= ing =3D names whenever they feel it is appropriate. All of these decisions a= re =3D left to the discretion of individual authors, and other authors are f= ree =3D to follow them or not at their own discretion. In such a truly free = =3D approach, not only are there no rules about standard affixes, there a= re =3D also no rules concerning precedence, and there are not even any phylo= geneti=3D c definitions (instead, they treat what we call definitions as mere = =3D descriptions that are neither fixed nor binding when it comes to the = =3D application of names). Basically, there is no need for a code at all= , =3D unless one wants to place restrictions on orthography and thus restri= ct =3D nomenclatural freedom in this way only. This perspective suggests th= at =3D the very _purpose_ of a nomenclatural code is to restrict nomenclatur= al =3D freedom. Therefore, it seems that what we should be discussing is no= t =3D _whether_ to restrict nomenclatural freedom, but instead _how_ to res= trict =3D it in ways that are most beneficial to biology. In this context, it = seems =3D appropriate to avoid invoking nomenclatural nomenclatural freedom in = our =3D discussion of the Pan and related conventions and instead to discuss = the =3D advantages and disadvantages of these conventions in terms of the = =3D communication function of taxon names. =3D20 Kevin de Queiroz Division of Amphibians & Reptiles Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012 NHB, Room W203, MRC 162 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 Voice: 202.633.0727 FAX: 202.357.3043 E-mail: dequeirk@si.edu