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]
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms

>>  I like Jon's autonym idea in principle but I am still working thr=
>>  the ramifications.  For example, if this approach were adopted, P=
>>  will presumably be one of the affixes that would be used.  Will
>>  registering Pan- as an autonymous prefix for panstem clades preve=
>>  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=
>>  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=
>>  autonym.
>But why would you need _Panangiospermae_ as a taxon when _Pan-Angios=
>would already exist?

Pan-Angiospermae is an autonym.  Shouldn't major panstem clades also=
have a formal name?

>>  What about competition between different affixes with different
>>  definitions?  For example, would Pan-Mammalia compete for priorit=
>>  with Corona-Synapsida?
>_Corono-Synapsida_ would be a heterodefinitional synonym of _Mammali=
a_, not

Yes, you're right.  I didn't express this very well.  What I meant is=
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=
combination of Synapsida and Corona-Synapsida versus Pan-Mammalia and=
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 =
>>  >Headden and Keesey; 2004.
>>  I don't understand "the term based on the name of the most inclus=
>>  base clade has priority". Would you give an example of how this r=
>>  for priority determination would be used?
>As I understand it, _Corono-Synapsida_ would be given priority (or p=
>primacy or preference would be better terms here) over _Corono-Thera=
>_Corono-Cynodontia_, etc.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130


Feedback to <> is welcome!