[Previous by date - PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Next by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:46:35 +0200
To: PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
Considering the fact that Article 10 is being rewritten, I might have= to retract the following... but so far it sounds ingenious to me. ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:08 PM > X.5 Autonyms do not compete with non-autonymous names for priority. Application > of a particular autonym or non-autonymous clade name is dependent s= olely on the > choice of the author of the work in question. The evolutionary approach! Let natural selection, or at least genetic= drift, fix it! :o) Well -- it certainly works on this list. > Example X3. Pan-Mammalia in example X1 might be a synonym of Synaps= ida; either > name may be used for the corresponding clade. Neither has priority. > > [...] > > Example X5. Corono-; prefix; the most recent common ancestor of all= extant > members of the base clade, and all of its descendants; no qualifyin= g clause; > the term based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has pri= ority; > Headden and Keesey; 2004. (Should be replaced with genuine examples once the contents of the co= mpanion volume will be fixed. Or alternatively, it should be marked in the Co= de which examples are genuine and which are hypothetical. The ICZN conta= ins a disclaimer near the beginning which say that its examples are not par= t of the Code, because each of them could be wrong.) > X.8 Autonymous affices are registered under the PhyloCode in a data= base distinct > from the clade name database. Or entries in the database will just be marked "affix", "clade name", "species name" or whatever. I have one question. Assuming Example X.5 were genuine, *Corono-Dinos= auria* and *Corono-Theropoda* would be synonyms. Would they just be treated = like heterodefinitional synonyms would be treated, means, whichever of *Dinosauria* and *Theropoda* would have priority would be eligible fo= r use with the prefix?