[Previous by date - Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonym=]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:53:36 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to non-autonyms as=
=20
"paranyms," in reference to the separation of (placement beside) the=
=20
definition and the formal name. Here I combined responses from multip=
le=20
messages. I do not wish to ignore certain respondents (the ones in qu=
estion=20
know I value their opinions), but I have had to be economical here.
Philip Cantino wrote:
>>> [Pan-Angiospermae is an autonym. Shouldn't major panstem clades=
also=20
>>> have a formal name?
I want to make one thing clear about this proposal: I never intended =
there=20
to be a difference between autonyms and paranyms, with respect to the=
ir=20
status as a NAME. Both are names, both are formal names, both are equ=
ally=20
valid. An autonym is another way of defining names, one that gets aro=
und=20
having to individually coin and register names in instances where a s=
ingle=20
nomenclatural act would suffice (e.g., panstems). By classifying thes=
e as=20
separate class of name, the proposal allows for suspension of synonym=
y=20
between the two classes, in order to allow authors to choose between=
=20
panstems and traditional names. This is not a necessary property of=
=20
autonyms, but it is convenient. I hope this will allow us to retain a=
=20
consistent Article 10 that will preserve continuity with the literatu=
re in=20
its entirety, but only for paranyms.
So, Pan-angiospermae IS a formal name for the total group of angiospe=
rms.=20
That's all that is needed, technically, to refer to the group. Those =
who=20
dislike the Pan convention can find another name to convert for the=
=20
paranym, or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
> Will registering Pan- as an autonymous prefix for panstem clades p=
revent=20
> me from using a name beginning with Pan- as the formal name for a p=
anstem=20
> clade?
In the case of total groups: why would you want to use the pan prefix=
in=20
non-autonymous nomenclature? If there already exists an appropriate a=
utonym=20
(e.g., Pan-Angiospermae), why would you want to also name a non-auton=
ym and=20
eliminate the opportunity for someone who does believe a name exists =
for=20
that group to convert that name (or coin a new name)? Why would you w=
ant to=20
force someone to use panstem nomenclature when you can give them the =
option=20
not to?
To answer the obvious next question, the feasibility of the use of Pa=
n-=20
with non-total-group paranyms: I think the hyphen (or some other=20
convention, e.g., an internal capital letter) should be reserved for=
=20
autonyms, if the latter are adopted. I really don't like the idea of=
=20
preventing people from using a prefix as they please. If autonyms are=
=20
visually distinct (e.g., with a hyphen), there should be no problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
>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=
on=20
>vertebrates, [...] Given the lack of preexisting names to apply to =
plant=20
>panstems (once the most widely known name is applied to the crown), =
a new=20
>name must be selected. [...[
> I had been planning to use Pan- names for all of the panstems of =
plant=20
> crown clades. If the autonym convention were adopted, I would not =
want=20
> this to prevent the use of Pan names as the formal name for panstem=
s=20
> where there is no preexisting name to compete with it.
I think the question is whether or not there is a name that COULD be=
=20
converted. Dr. Cantino, Dr. Gauthier, Dr. de Quieroz, me, and many ot=
her=20
participants at the Paris meeting have gone to great lengths to show =
that=20
there can be no *unequivocal* conversion. Historically and functional=
ly,=20
authors have used traditional taxon names to refer both to the crown =
and=20
the total group (as you point out). I would not want to see you preve=
nt=20
another author who feels that it is justifiable to take a lesser-know=
n=20
taxon name and apply it to the total group (which has been done exten=
sively=20
in vertebrate taxonomy, as David Marjanovic has pointed out), if the=
=20
autonym rules allow you to have BOTH the Pan- name and another name.=
=20
Coining a new name when an older name could be used is a violation of=
=20
continuity with the literature, in my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
>I don't understand the difference between "the affix with the earlie=
r date=20
>has priority" and "priority is determined according to the protologu=
e of=20
>the affix". Do you mean the date of the protologue or something in =
the=20
>protologue? An example would be helpful here. [...] What about=20
>competition between different affixes with different definitions? F=
or=20
>example, would Pan-Mammalia compete for priority with=20
>Corona-Synapsida? Or would it simply be up to a particular user of =
names=20
>to decide which name to use? I would prefer the latter.
Sorry for the confusion! Priority among autonyms with DIFFER=
ENT=20
affices is resoved according to the publication order of these affice=
s. If=20
Pan- is published before Holo-, then Pan-Tribbilia has priority over=
=20
Holo-Tribbilia.
Prioirity of taxon names with the SAME affix is resolved by =
a set=20
of explicit rules set out in the protologue of the affix. These rules=
must=20
state unequivocally how to resolve which of several autonyms sharing =
the=20
same affix should be chosen. If Corono- has the priority rule "the au=
tonym=20
based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has priority," and=
we=20
are asked to choose between Corono-angiospermae and Corono-plantae, w=
e=20
would pick Corono=3Dangiospermae.
A third instance, on I did not consider initially, must also=
be=20
dealt with: when the base names of two autonyms are considered synony=
mous,=20
the priority of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
>What I meant is would the subsequent user of names (for example in=
=20
>selecting a classification to use in a text) have the right to choos=
e=20
>between the combination of Synapsida and Corona-Synapsida versus=
=20
>Pan-Mammalia and Mammalia? I assume the answer is yes, but I just w=
anted=20
>to make sure.
Yes. The recommendation only states that authors should be=
=20
consistent in using autonyms instead of paranyms in particular cases.=
There=20
should, as has been pointed out, be an addition to that recommendatio=
n=20
suggesting that autonyms should not be used if the base name they ref=
erence=20
is not being used (e.g., an autonym is used instead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to consider this proposal!
Jon