[Previous by date - Re: Internet Citation Concerns]
[Next by date - info]
[Previous by subject - Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - aut=]
[Next by subject - Re: ISPN, CPN, and Companion Volume]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:56:24 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - aut=
David, Yes, the example for 3 is silly... no one expects Mammalia to =3D The= ria. I was short on time. :) No, different affices are dealt with in example 1; example two covers= same affix, different, non-synonymous base-names. Example 3 addresses same= affix and synonymous base names. Jon Quoting David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>: > > 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 r= ules must > > state unequivocally how to resolve which of several autonyms shar= ing the > > same affix should be chosen. If Corono- has the priority rule "th= e autonym > > based on the name of the most inclusive base clade has priority,"= and we > > are asked to choose between Corono-angiospermae and Corono-planta= e, we > > would pick Corono=3Dangiospermae. > > > > 3) A third situation, one I did not consider before, must al= so be > > dealt with: when the base names of two autonyms are considered sy= nonymous, > > the autonym with the base name having priority has priority. If w= e are > > asked to consider Pan-mammalia and Pan-theria, where Mammalia has= prioirty > > over Theria, under a hypothesis in which Mammalia =3D Theria, the= n > > Pan-mammalia has priority over Pan-theria. >=20 > I don't understand the difference between these two. Is your exampl= e for 3) > erroneous, and does 3) deal with synonymous autonyms with _differen= t_ > affixes? >=20 >=20