[Previous by date - autonymous affixes]
[Next by date - Re: Article 11.8]
[Previous by subject - Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)]
[Next by subject - Article 5]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:36:13 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Article 11.8
"11.8. In the interest of consistency with the preexisting codes, it = would=20 be desirable for a clade whose name is converted from a genus name un= der a=20 preexisting code, or is derived from the stem of a genus name, to inc= lude=20 the type of the genus name. Therefore, when a clade name is converted= from a=20 preexisting genus name or is a new or converted name derived from the= stem=20 of a genus name, the definition of the clade name must use the type s= pecies=20 of that genus name at the time of establishment as an internal specif= ier." Why not "must use the type species of that genus name at the time of= =20 establishment, or the type specimen(s) of that species at the same ti= me, as=20 (an) internal specifier(s)"?=20