[Previous by date - unsubscribe]
[Next by date - Re: unsubscribe]
[Previous by subject - Art 10.1]
[Next by subject - Art. 17.1]
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:45:31 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Art. 11.5
--Boundary_(ID_fwBcnbKh2zOvcz6QMV1Ozg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi All,
Regarding Art. 11.5:
11.5. Specimens that are not types may be used as specifiers only if=
=20
the specimen does not belong to a named species under any code.
Note 11.5.1. Permitting the use of specimens that are not types as=
=20
specifiers makes it possible to name a clade without necessarily=20
naming species to accommodate every specifier if one or more=20
specifiers do not already belong to named species.
I know this has been discussed before, but this article now seems=
=20
empty. Suppose I wanted to use a convenient and complete specimen as=
=20
a specifier instead of the traditional, perhaps fragmentary type=20
specimen. According to ART. 11.5, I could do so if (and only if) I=
=20
decided that the preferred specimen is not part of any named species.=
=20
Let us suppose I did hold such a view (at least for the few minutes=
=20
when I proposed that this specimen be used as a specifier). Suppose,=
=20
however, that all other competent systematists disagree: - they all=
=20
hold that the specimen is part of a named species. In my=20
understanding of the Code this would not invalidate my name (to do so=
=20
would result in the same kind of instability we are seeking to=20
avoid). Therefore, barring suppression, my name would hold even if,=
=20
in everybody else's opinion, I had violated art 11.5.
In light of this I would suggest that Art. 11.5 serves only as a=20
recommendation and that it therefore might as well be called one.
(I should confess that am I one of the people who think it makes=20
sense to sometimes select good specimens rather than always falling=
=20
back on the traditional types)
David
--=20
David Baum=20
Department of Botany =09=09Off.:(608)265-5385
University of Wisconsin=09 =09Lab.:(608)265-7929
430 Lincoln Drive =09Fax :(608)262-7509
Madison, WI 53706 =09dbaum@wisc.edu
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/baum
--Boundary_(ID_fwBcnbKh2zOvcz6QMV1Ozg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Art. 11.5</title></head><body>
<div>Hi All,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regarding Art. 11.5:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face=3D"Times" size=3D"+1" color=3D"#000000">11.5. Specime=
ns that
are not types may be used as specifiers only if the specimen does not
belong to a named species under any code.</font><br>
<font face=3D"Times" size=3D"+1" color=3D"#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face=3D"Times" size=3D"+1" color=3D"#000000">Note 11.5.1.
Permitting the use of specimens that are not types as specifiers make=
s
it possible to name a clade without necessarily naming species to
accommodate every specifier if one or more specifiers do not already
belong to named species.</font></div>
<div><font face=3D"Times" size=3D"+1" color=3D"#000000"><br></font></=
div>
<div><font face=3D"Times" color=3D"#000000">I know this has been disc=
ussed
before, but this article now seems empty. Suppose I wanted to use a
convenient and complete specimen as a specifier instead of the
traditional, perhaps fragmentary type specimen. According to
ART. 11.5, I could do so if (and only if) I decided</font> that the
preferred specimen is not part of any named species. Let us
suppose I did hold such a view (at least for the few minutes when I
proposed that this specimen be used as a specifier). Suppose,
however, that all other competent systematists disagree: - they all
hold that the specimen is part of a named species. In my
understanding of the Code this would not invalidate my name (to do so
would result in the same kind of instability we are seeking to
avoid). Therefore, barring suppression, my name would hold even
if, in everybody else's opinion, I had violated art 11.5. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In light of this I would suggest that Art. 11.5 serves only as
a<u> recommendation</u> and that it therefore might as well be called
one.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(I should confess that am I one of the people who think it makes
sense to sometimes select good specimens rather than always falling
back on the traditional types)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>David</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--=20
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>David Baum <br>
<br>
Department of Botany <x-tab> =
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab>Off.:(608)265-5385<br>
University of Wisconsin<x-tab>
</x-tab
> &n=
bsp;<x-tab
> </x-tab>Lab.:(608)265-7929<br>
430 Lincoln
Drive <spa=
n
></span
> <x=
-tab
> </x-tab>Fax
:(608)262-7509<br>
Madison, WI
53706 <spa=
n
></span> <=
x-tab
> </x-tab>dbaum@wisc.edu<br>
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/baum</div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_fwBcnbKh2zOvcz6QMV1Ozg)--