Message 2004-10-0099: Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names

Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:45:40 -0500

[Previous by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Next by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Previous by subject - Re: Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names]
[Next by subject - Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names]

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:45:40 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: Philip Cantino <>
Subject: Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names

Quoting Philip Cantino <>:
> the approach we are taking is to start with a rule that=20
> a preexisting name for a clade (or a paraphyletic group stemming fr=
> the same ancestor) must be used EXCEPT under a few specified=20
> circumstances, under which a new name may be selected.
     I would like to suggest that some there be a "weasel clause" all=
greater latitude with relatively new names. In several groups, indivi=
duals have
recently (within the last two decades) published nearly comprehensive
nomenclatural schemes, but these have not always involved the most be=

     And then, of course, there is the point Dr. de Queiroz has broug=
ht up
repeatedly: it is well-nigh impossible to determine to which clade a
traditional name ACTUALLY refers. When a name HAS been provided with =
phylogenetic definition previously, this is easier. However, as I poi=
nted out
in my second presentation in Paris, retaining some of those definitio=
ns is
actually *detrimental* to continuity with the literature!

>  We feel that=20
> this should be a rule rather than a recommendation to prevent peopl=
> from simply ignoring preexisting names and coining a whole new set =
> names.
     Agreed. I feel the emphasis should be squarely on continuity wit=
h the
literature and access to the literature. I just hope that enough flex=
ibility is
retained in the Article to allow us to correct some unfortunate choic=
es made in
the past.

> Another circumstance=20
> specified in our proposed revision of Art. 10 is if the clade to be=
> named is a total (panstem) clade, in which case the author is=20
> encouraged (but not required!) to use a Pan- name.=20

     This would be directly opposed to continuity with, and access to=
literature. I, for one, am strongly opposed to this.

     Will the ISPN as a whole be given an opportunity to comment/vote=
the proposed changes?



Feedback to <> is welcome!