[Previous by date - Internet Citation Concerns (Was: References for Papers Using= PhyloCode)]
[Next by date - Re: Internet Citation Concerns]
[Previous by subject - Re: Hybrid specifiers]
[Next by subject - Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - aut=]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:04:55 +0200
To: PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - aut=
> 2) Prioirity of taxon names with the SAME affix is resolved by= a set > of explicit rules set out in the protologue of the affix. These rul= es must > state unequivocally how to resolve which of several autonyms sharin= g the > same affix should be chosen. If Corono- has the priority rule "the = autonym > based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has priority," a= nd we > are asked to choose between Corono-angiospermae and Corono-plantae,= we > would pick Corono=3Dangiospermae. > > 3) A third situation, one I did not consider before, must also= be > dealt with: when the base names of two autonyms are considered syno= nymous, > the autonym with the base name having priority has priority. If we = are > asked to consider Pan-mammalia and Pan-theria, where Mammalia has p= rioirty > over Theria, under a hypothesis in which Mammalia =3D Theria, then > Pan-mammalia has priority over Pan-theria. I don't understand the difference between these two. Is your example = for 3) erroneous, and does 3) deal with synonymous autonyms with _different_ affixes?