[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