[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Codes]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:37:29 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
> >> I like Jon's autonym idea in principle but I am still working thr= ough >> the ramifications. For example, if this approach were adopted, P= an- >> will presumably be one of the affixes that would be used. Will >> registering Pan- as an autonymous prefix for panstem clades preve= nt >> me from using a name beginning with Pan- as the formal name for a >> panstem clade? >[...] >> I suppose the names could take a different format so that people >> woule easily recognize whicha re autonyms. For example, use of t= he >> connecting hyphen could be restricted to autonyms. If this is >> acceptable, I could choose to use Panangiospermae as the official >> name of the panstem of Angiospermae without people thinking it is= an >> autonym. > >But why would you need _Panangiospermae_ as a taxon when _Pan-Angios= permae_ >would already exist? Pan-Angiospermae is an autonym. Shouldn't major panstem clades also= =20 have a formal name? > >> What about competition between different affixes with different >> definitions? For example, would Pan-Mammalia compete for priorit= y >> with Corona-Synapsida? > >_Corono-Synapsida_ would be a heterodefinitional synonym of _Mammali= a_, not >_Pan-Mammalia_. Yes, you're right. I didn't express this very well. What I meant is= =20 would the subsequent user of names (for example in selecting a=20 classification to use in a text) have the right to choose between the= =20 combination of Synapsida and Corona-Synapsida versus Pan-Mammalia and= =20 Mammalia? I assume the answer is yes, but I just wanted to make sure= . > > >Example X5. Corono-; prefix; the most recent common ancestor of= all extant >> >members of the base clade, and all of its descendants; no=20 >>qualifying clause; >> >the term based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has = priority; >> >Headden and Keesey; 2004. >> >> I don't understand "the term based on the name of the most inclus= ive >> base clade has priority". Would you give an example of how this r= ule >> for priority determination would be used? > >As I understand it, _Corono-Synapsida_ would be given priority (or p= erhaps >primacy or preference would be better terms here) over _Corono-Thera= psida_, >_Corono-Cynodontia_, etc. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail --=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