[Previous by date - info]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: In case anyone was wondering]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:23:45 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X =
Phylocoders, I sent this to Jon earlier today and forgot to cc it to the listserv. Phil > >Jon Wagner wrote: > >>I want to make one thing clear about this proposal: I never=20 >>intended there to be a difference between autonyms and paranyms,= =20 >>with respect to their status as a NAME. Both are names, both are= =20 >>formal names, both are equally valid. An autonym is another way of= =20 >>defining names, one that gets around having to individually coin= =20 >>and register names in instances where a single nomenclatural act= =20 >>would suffice (e.g., panstems). By classifying these as separate= =20 >>class of name, the proposal allows for suspension of synonymy=20 >>between the two classes, in order to allow authors to choose=20 >>between panstems and traditional names. This is not a necessary= =20 >>property of autonyms, but it is convenient. I hope this will allow= =20 >>us to retain a consistent Article 10 that would preserve continuity= =20 >>with the literature in its entirety, but only for paranyms. >> >>So, Pan-angiospermae IS a formal name for the total group of=20 >>angiosperms. That's all that is needed, technically. Those who=20 >>dislike the Pan convention can find another name to convert for the= =20 >>paranym, or not. > >I like this approach. I guess what I would do in the case of=20 >Angiospermae is to decline to define a paranym for the total group= =20 >and just make note that I accept the autonym Pan-angiospermae. > > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- >> >>> Will registering Pan- as an autonymous prefix for panstem clades= =20 >>>prevent me from using a name beginning with Pan- as the formal= =20 >>>name for a panstem clade? >> >>In the case of total groups: why would you want to use the pan=20 >>prefix in non-autonymous nomenclature? If there already exists an= =20 >>appropriate autonym (e.g., Pan-Angiospermae), why would you want to= =20 >>also name a non-autonym and eliminate the opportunity for someone= =20 >>who does believe a name exists for that group to convert that name= =20 >>(or coin a new name)? Why would you want to force someone to use= =20 >>panstem nomenclature when you can give them the option not to? > >I accept your point. See my comment above about how I propose to= =20 >handle this for Angiospermae. > >>To answer the obvious next question, the feasibility of the use of= =20 >>Pan- with non-total-group paranyms: I think the hyphen (or some= =20 >>other convention, e.g., an internal capital letter) should be=20 >>reserved for autonyms, if the latter are adopted. I really don't= =20 >>like the idea of preventing people from using a prefix as they=20 >>please. If autonyms are visually distinct (e.g., with a hyphen),= =20 >>there should be no problem. > >Agreed. Most importantly, I would not want to prevent people from= =20 >converting preexisting names that happen to include a registered= =20 >autonymous affix. > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- >> >>>I don't understand the difference between "the affix with the=20 >>>earlier date has priority" and "priority is determined according= =20 >>>to the protologue of the affix". Do you mean the date of the=20 >>>protologue or something in the protologue? An example would be= =20 >>>helpful here. [...] I don't understand "the term based on the name= =20 >>>of the most inclusive base clade has priority". Would you give an= =20 >>>example of how this rule for priority determination would be used?= =20 >>>[...] What about competition between different affixes with=20 >>>different definitions? For example, would Pan-Mammalia compete= =20 >>>for priority with Corona-Synapsida? Or would it simply be up to a= =20 >>>particular user of names to decide which name to use? I would= =20 >>>prefer the latter. >> >> Sorry for the confusion! >>1) Priority among autonyms with DIFFERENT affices is resoved= =20 >>according to the publication order of these affices. If Pan- is= =20 >>published before Holo-, then Pan-Tribbilia has priority over=20 >>Holo-Tribbilia. >> >>2) Prioirity of taxon names with the SAME affix is resolved by= =20 >>a set of explicit rules set out in the protologue of the affix.= =20 >>These rules must state unequivocally how to resolve which of=20 >>several autonyms sharing the same affix should be chosen. If=20 >>Corono- has the priority rule "the autonym based on the name of the= =20 >>most inclusive base clade has priority," and we are asked to choose= =20 >>between Corono-angiospermae and Corono-plantae, we would pick=20 >>Corono=3Dangiospermae. > >Shouldn't Corono-plantae be selected instead? Plantae is more=20 >inclusive than Angiospermae. > >More importantly, I don't think this rule is needed. The panstems= =20 >of Plantae and Angiospermae are different clades and the names=20 >Pan-plantae and Pan-angiospermae therefore are not in competition.= =20 >More generally, would not the panstems of any two crown clades that= =20 >differ in inclusiveness always be different clades and therefore= =20 >need different names? > >>3) A third situation, one I did not consider before, must also= =20 >>be dealt with: when the base names of two autonyms are considered= =20 >>synonymous, the autonym with the base name having priority has=20 >>priority. If we are asked to consider Pan-mammalia and Pan-theria,= =20 >>where Mammalia has prioirty over Theria, under a hypothesis in=20 >>which Mammalia =3D Theria, then Pan-mammalia has priority over=20 >>Pan-theria. > >This is a good rule. > > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- >> >>>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= =20 >>>choose between the combination of Synapsida and Corona-Synapsida= =20 >>>versus Pan-Mammalia and Mammalia? I assume the answer is yes, but= =20 >>>I just wanted to make sure. >> >> Yes. The recommendation only states that authors should be= =20 >>consistent in using autonyms instead of paranyms in particular=20 >>cases. There should, as has been pointed out, be an addition to= =20 >>that recommendation, suggesting that autonyms should not be used if= =20 >>the base name they reference is not being used (e.g., an autonym is= =20 >>used instead; Pan-mammalia and Corono-synapsida). > >Agreed. > >Phil > --=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