[Previous by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: New critics]
[Next by subject - Fwd: PhyloCode Test Case (Siphonophora?)]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:09:07 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
I like Jon's autonym idea in principle but I am still working through= =20 the ramifications. For example, if this approach were adopted, Pan-= =20 will presumably be one of the affixes that would be used. Will=20 registering Pan- as an autonymous prefix for panstem clades prevent= =20 me from using a name beginning with Pan- as the formal name for a= =20 panstem clade? As background for this question, I would like to point out that the= =20 discussion of Pan- names on the listserv has focused almost entirely= =20 on vertebrates, where there seem to be one or more names used=20 historically for the panstem of just about every major crown clade.= =20 The situation with plants (and probably many other groups of=20 non-vertebrate organisms) is quite different. There are few if any= =20 names that have been applied to a panstem of plants that have not= =20 also been applied (often more frequently) to the corresponding crown.= =20 For each crown-panstem combination, there is generally only one name= =20 (or the same root name with different rank-based endings depending on= =20 the classification). If the name is being used by a paleontologist,= =20 it applies to the panstem. If the same name is used by a=20 neontologist, the intent is harder to judge. What you rarely if ever= =20 find is two different names being applied to a crown-panstem=20 combination by the same authors, with one name applied to the crown= =20 and the other to the panstem. If only a single name is used for both= =20 clades (by different people), and if one accepts that widely used= =20 names are better applied to the crown, then there is no name left= =20 over to apply to the panstem. Given the lack of preexisting names to= =20 apply to plant panstems (once the most widely known name is applied= =20 to the crown), a new name must be selected. I had been planning to= =20 use Pan- names for all of the panstems of plant crown clades. If the= =20 autonym convention were adopted, I would not want this to prevent the= =20 use of Pan names as the formal name for panstems where there is no= =20 preexisting name to compete with it. I suppose the names could take a different format so that people=20 woule easily recognize whicha re autonyms. For example, use of the= =20 connecting hyphen could be restricted to autonyms. If this is=20 acceptable, I could choose to use Panangiospermae as the official= =20 name of the panstem of Angiospermae without people thinking it is an= =20 autonym. I also have a couple of questions about Jon's proposed rule, inserted= below. >X.6 If autonyms with different affices have the same definition, the= =20 >affix with >the earlier date has priority. If autonyms with the same affix have = the same >definition, priority is determined according to the protologue of th= e affix. I don't understand the difference between "the affix with the earlier= =20 date has priority" and "priority is determined according to the=20 protologue of the affix". Do you mean the date of the protologue or= =20 something in the protologue? An example would be helpful here. What about competition between different affixes with different=20 definitions? For example, would Pan-Mammalia compete for priority= =20 with Corona-Synapsida? Or would it simply be up to a particular user= =20 of names to decide which name to use? I would prefer the latter. > >Example X5. Corono-; prefix; the most recent common ancestor of all = extant >members of the base clade, and all of its descendants; no qualifying= clause; >the term based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has prio= rity; >Headden and Keesey; 2004. I don't understand "the term based on the name of the most inclusive= =20 base clade has priority". Would you give an example of how this rule= =20 for priority determination would be used? Thank-you, Jon, for your creative proposal! Phil --=20 Philip D. Cantino Professor and Associate Chair Department of Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 U.S.A. Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126 Fax: (740) 593-1130 e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu