Message 2004-10-0141: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X =

Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:23:45 -0400

[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

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!