Message 2004-10-0172: Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes

Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:39:49 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Next by date - Mention of the Phylocode]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=]

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:39:49 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes

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

Indeed.

I had suggested to take the meanings of such names under consideratio=
n if
there is one (like for *Ficus* -- and not for *Galtonia*). But this
preassumes that both the clam and the tree names will be converted, a=
nd I
shouldn't do that. If the clam name will be converted and the tree na=
me will
not be, then the etymology will have to be ignored in any case. So I =
retract
that proposal.


  

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