Message 2004-10-0159: Art. 11.5

Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:45:31 -0500

[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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Suppose,
however, that all other competent systematists disagree: - they all
hold that the specimen is part of a named species.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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&nbsp;<br>
<br>
Department of Botany&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;
</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</x-tab>Off.:(608)265-5385<br>
University of Wisconsin<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</x-tab
>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;<x-tab
>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </x-tab>Lab.:(608)265-7929<br>
430 Lincoln
Drive&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<spa=
n
></span
>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<x=
-tab
>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </x-tab>Fax
:(608)262-7509<br>
Madison, WI
53706&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<spa=
n
></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<=
x-tab
> </x-tab>dbaum@wisc.edu<br>
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/baum</div>
</body>
</html>

--Boundary_(ID_fwBcnbKh2zOvcz6QMV1Ozg)--

  

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