[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
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= =3D 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 = =3D determine which alternative they prefer, which might then allow us to= =3D 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 = =3D proposed by JRW, I think the PhyloCode Advisory Group first needs to = =3D 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 Kevin >>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 9/16/04 2:08 PM >>> In the never-ending search for a way to appease everyone concerning = =3D panstems, here's a combination of the proposals recently made regarding panstem= s. =3D This system would allow users of the pantstem convention to use pan- names unreservedly without placing those names in competition for priority = with historically used names (the "Rule 10A problem"). It is largely based= on Cannatella's suggestion at the Paris meeting,with some additions insp= ired =3D by the recent discussion. I apologize if I have pilfered ideas from othe= rs uncredited... I haven't been able to keep up with recent posts. Wagner ARTICLE X: AUTONYMS 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 with the addition of a prefix or a suffix (collectively, affices), separat= ed =3D =66rom 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 = =3D references the definition of the base-clade. Example X1. The Pan- autonymous affix has the modular deifnition "[ba= se =3D clade] and all extinct taxa more closely related to [baseclade] than to any = other extant taxon." Thus, the autonym Pan-Mammalia (where Mammalia is crow= n-clad=3D e mammals) would be defined as "Mammalia and all extinct taxa more clos= ely related to [Mammalia than to any other extant taxon." X.4 An autonym affix can be appended to any clade within the scope of= its definintion. Example X2. The Pan- autonymous affix might be restricted to base cla= des =3D which are crown clades. Therefore Pan-Trilobita or Pan-Tyrannosaurus would = be non-existant clades. X.5 Autonyms do not compete with non-autonymous names for priority. = =3D Application 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 either autonyms or non-autonyms for a particular class of names (e.g., names= of =3D total groups) within a particular publication. Example X3. Pan-Mammalia in example X1 might be a synonym of Synapsid= a; =3D either 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 with the earlier date has priority. If autonyms with the same affix have t= he =3D same definition, priority is determined according to the protologue of the= =3D affix. X.7 Autonyms are not named, registered or defined in the manner of = =3D non-autonyms. They are considered to be a derivative of the nomenclatural act which= =3D created the base name, and have no independent authorship or registry. In thi= s =3D way,they 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 distinct =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 base clade;(optional) qualifying clause(s), describing the intended applic= ation =3D of the affix; rules for priority determination; author; and date. Example X5. Corono-; prefix; the most recent common ancestor of all e= xtant members of the base clade, and all of its descendants; no qualifying = =3D clause; the term based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has prior= ity; Headden and Keesey; 2004.