[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 17:44:31 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
All, Cannatella's idea was "voted down," but it was in competition with se= veral other ideas, and was not dealt with individually. I wholeheartedly agree wi= th Dr. de Queiroz that the issue of allowing two names for a clade MUST be addr= essed before any rules are considered or adopted. This was my gravest conce= rn about the Cannatella proposal. My modification of that proposal does nothin= g to solve this, other than removing panstems from the class of "regular taxon n= ames." My goal in proposing this formally to create a structure in which panste= ms can be dealt with en masse without deliberate dual registration, rather than= having to adopt specific rules that except certain names from priority Jon > OK... it's over 2 months ago, and I didn't take any notes... but I = can't > remember a vote on this happening. Besides, as you have yourself re= minded us > several times, those votes were just polls, not anything binding --= and the > full "Article X" had not yet been invented, so it wasn't available = as an > alternative.