[Previous by date - Re: The Pancompromise?]
[Next by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Next by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2
Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) wrote: <Therefore, in the PhyloCode, we should not reject the general idea o= f using standard affixes just because affixes have formerly been associ= ated with ranks. That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.= > I agree with the above for a lot of reasons. However, under the pre= mise of the PhyloCode, this would restrict how people could name names, tightening the noose that would have allowed them to use a name other= than using Pan- for a total-content clade. Using intuitive markers for peo= ple OUTSIDE of the knowledge base of the specialty it's being used in mak= es little to no sense; people who work in the field care more for the na= me, than for the rank. In the use of ranks outside of taxonomy, as brough= t up before, its not the name that matters, but the perceived importance o= f the rank and its content, without any thought to what it represents apart= from a means to catalogue and use, as in "all members of Order [blank] are illegal or endangered." There is no effective use of this otherwise, = and intuitive recognition becomes pointless outside of such a context. This is one of the reasons I have seen most used to counter the Lin= naean system: it forces clades to follow a pattern, and the intuitive recognition of this is via the suffixes each name uses. The only name= s to enjoy relative freedom have been genera and species, and even then, t= hey follow rules (capitalization in one, italicization in both) that sepa= rate them and make them intuitive as well. However, they do NOT require substantial name-shaping rules except for orthography. Note the use o= f Native American languages in the naming of reptiles and mammals from = both of the Americas (*Suuwassea* and *Anhanguera*), and the convention wa= s applied to names that do not even come close to using an English orthography, such as Chinese (*Nuerosaurus*?), or even Africa (*Nqwebasaurus*); entomology even allows the butterfly *Ia io,* which= does NOT conform to a Latin rules structure. At what point will the affix benefit language more than restrict its use in freedom to name taxa? Cheers, =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to mak= ing leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to = do. We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world arou= nd us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) =09=09 _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com