Message 2004-10-0112: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:57:54 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:57:54 -0400
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms

Interesting to see that JRW has reintroduced the possibility of allow=
ing =3D
both names formed using a standard affix and synonyms not so formed t=
o be =3D
accepted names (e.g., PanMammalia and Synapsida for the total clade o=
f =3D
mammals).  This possibility was raised at the Paris meeting (by David=
Cannatella, as JRW noted) and voted down by what I seem to remember w=
as a =3D
strong majority.  Presumably the reason that it was voted down was th=
at it =3D
violates the fundametal principle (PhyloCode Principle 3) of uniquene=
ss =3D
(i.e., that every taxon should have only one accepted name).  On the =
other =3D
hand, it would solve the problem of us trying to decide, based on our=
 own =3D
personal opinions and those of small samples of our colleagues, wheth=
er it =3D
is better to legislate a rule forcing people to use a name formed wit=
h a =3D
standard affix versus a rule forcing them to use an exsiting name ver=
sus =3D
some intermediate strategy.  In other words, it would allow users to =
determine which alternative they prefer, which might then allow us to=
settle on one as a rule at some time in the future.  I am in favor of=
 this =3D
general proposal; however, rather than discussing the detailed rules =
proposed by JRW, I think the PhyloCode Advisory Group first needs to =
decide whether we are willing to adopt the general approach despite t=
he =3D
fact that it allows more than one accepted name for a taxon. =3D20


>>> <> - 9/16/04 2:08 PM >>>
In the never-ending search for a way to appease everyone concerning =
here's a combination of the proposals recently made regarding panstem=
s. =3D
system would allow users of the pantstem convention to use pan- names
unreservedly without placing those names in competition for priority =
historically used names (the "Rule 10A problem"). It is largely based=
Cannatella's suggestion at the Paris meeting,with some additions insp=
ired =3D
the recent discussion. I apologize if I have pilfered ideas from othe=
uncredited... I haven't been able to keep up with recent posts.



X.1 Autonyms are self-defining clade names that exist separately from
conventional clade names under the PhyloCode.

X.2 Autonyms are derived from a non-autonymous clade name (the base n=
ame), =3D
the addition of a prefix or a suffix (collectively, affices), separat=
ed =3D
the base name by a hyphen.

X.3 When an autonymous affix is appended to a clade name, the resulti=
ng =3D
name is
defined by the a modular definition associated with that affix that =
the definition of the base-clade.

Example X1. The Pan- autonymous affix has the modular deifnition "[ba=
se =3D
and all extinct taxa more closely related to [baseclade] than to any =
extant taxon." Thus, the autonym Pan-Mammalia (where Mammalia is crow=
mammals) would be defined as "Mammalia and all extinct taxa more clos=
related to [Mammalia than to any other extant taxon."

X.4 An autonym affix can be appended to any clade within the scope of=

Example X2. The Pan- autonymous affix might be restricted to base cla=
des =3D
are crown clades. Therefore Pan-Trilobita or Pan-Tyrannosaurus would =
non-existant clades.

X.5 Autonyms do not compete with non-autonymous names for priority. =
of a particular autonym or non-autonymous clade name is dependent sol=
ely =3D
on the
choice of the author of the work in question.

Recommendation X1. It is recommended that authors restrict their use =
to =3D
autonyms or non-autonyms for a particular class of names (e.g., names=
 of =3D
groups) within a particular publication.

Example X3. Pan-Mammalia in example X1 might be a synonym of Synapsid=
a; =3D
name may be used for the corresponding clade. Neither has priority.

X.6 If autonyms with different affices have the same definition, the =
affix =3D
the earlier date has priority. If autonyms with the same affix have t=
he =3D
definition, priority is determined according to the protologue of the=

X.7 Autonyms are not named, registered or defined in the manner of =
They are considered to be a derivative of the nomenclatural act which=
the base name, and have no independent authorship or registry. In thi=
s =3D
are similar to the coordinate taxa of some rank-based codes.

Example X4. The Pan- prefix is registered, with an author and a date.
Pan-Mammalia is not registered, has not author, and no date.

X.8 Autonymous affices are registered under the PhyloCode in a databa=
se =3D
=66rom the clade name database.

X.9 When an autonym is registered, the following parts of the protolo=
gue =3D
must be
specified: the spelling of the affix; an indication of whether it is =
a =3D
prefix of
a suffix; a modular definition, which relates to the definition of th=
e =3D
clade;(optional) qualifying clause(s), describing the intended applic=
ation =3D
the affix; rules for priority determination; author; and date.

Example X5. Corono-; prefix; the most recent common ancestor of all e=
members of the base clade, and all of its descendants; no qualifying =
the term based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has prior=
Headden and Keesey; 2004.


Feedback to <> is welcome!