Message 2004-10-0171: Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes

Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - unsubscribe]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes

--- Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu> wrote:
>=20
> This is correct.  Conversion of Ficus for a clade of snails would=
=20
> prevent subsequent conversion of Ficus for a clade of plants.  If=
=20
> this were to occur, a new name Phytoficus might be selected for the=
=20
> plant clade.  Alternatively, because Ficus is a very well known nam=
e,=20
> one could propose that the CPN conserve Ficus for the plant clade,=
=20
> and the snail clade would have to be renamed.

Okay, the situation does seem to be covered, then.

Perhaps another note or an example using a homonym from different pre=
existing
codes (e.g., _Ficus_) under Article 11.8 would not be amiss, just to =
address
the situation explicitly?


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


=09=09
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20

  

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