Message 2004-10-0090: Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:49:11 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: The Pancompromise?]
[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: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:49:11 -0400
From: [unknown]

>I just realized that this didn't go to the list.<

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

<10.2. Apart from the proceedures established in Article 9, 10.1, 15,=
18, and Recommendation 10 A [etc.], no compulsion, restriction, or ru=
le of
 any kind may prevent authors from constructing and defining names as=
see fit.>

  Perhaps this should be "In accordance to ..." instead of "Apart fro=

  However, I otherwise concur. Enforcement of the definition and use =
the name, as formulated, should be considered part of the taxonomy,
nomenclatural, and definitional freedom being espoused by the framers=
the PhyloCode. Enforcement of a naming convention, e.g. requiring an =
for some clades, but not others, sounds like the ICZN mandate for aff=
for types of taxa, regardless of wether we call them "ranks" or "clad=

>There are two different conventions in the rank-based codes that per=
haps =3D
are not being separated as clearly as they might be:  1) the use of r=
anks, =3D
and 2) the use of affixes to indicate that a particular taxon is a me=
mber =3D
of a particular class of taxa.  In the rank-based codes, the classes =
of =3D
taxa in 2 are those associated with particular ranks (families, gener=
a, =3D
etc.), so the two conventions go hand in hand.  However, in the conte=
xt of =3D
phylogenetic nomenclature, the two conventions are separated.  That i=
s to =3D
say, in the absence of ranks there can still be important classes of =
taxa, =3D
such as clades and species or total clades and crown clades, and it i=
s =3D
therefore possible to use standard affixes without invoking ranks.  T=
he =3D
point I am trying to make is that just because affixes are associated=
 with =3D
ranks in the rank-based codes, there is no necessary association betw=
een =3D
affixes and ranks.  Therefore, in the PhyloCode, we should not reject=
 the =3D
general idea of using standard affixes just because affixes have form=
erly =3D
been associated with ranks.  That would be throwing the baby out with=
 the =3D
bath water.<

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


Feedback to <> is welcome!