Message 2004-10-0121: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms

Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:37:29 -0400

[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

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!