[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]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2
>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,= 17, 18, and Recommendation 10 A [etc.], no compulsion, restriction, or ru= le 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 fro= m =2E..."? However, I otherwise concur. Enforcement of the definition and use = of the name, as formulated, should be considered part of the taxonomy, nomenclatural, and definitional freedom being espoused by the framers= of the PhyloCode. Enforcement of a naming convention, e.g. requiring an = affix for some clades, but not others, sounds like the ICZN mandate for aff= ixes for types of taxa, regardless of wether we call them "ranks" or "clad= es." >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 E-mail: dequeirk@si.edu