Message 2005-05-0010: Fwd: Re: Article 11.8

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 +0100

[Previous by date - Re: Thank you!]
[Next by date - Re: Hi]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: Codes]

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 +0100
From: [unknown]
Subject: Fwd: Re: Article 11.8

Hello all,

=09I agree with David and Phil.


>David Marjanovic wrote:
>>"11.8. In the interest of consistency with the=3D20
>>preexisting codes, it would be desirable for a=3D20
>>clade whose name is converted from a genus name=3D20
>>under a preexisting code, or is derived from=3D20
>>the stem of a genus name, to include the type=3D20
>>of the genus name. Therefore, when a clade name=3D20
>>is converted from a preexisting genus name or=3D20
>>is a new or converted name derived from the=3D20
>>stem of a genus name, the definition of the=3D20
>>clade name must use the type species of that=3D20
>>genus name at the time of establishment as an=3D20
>>internal specifier."
>>Why not "must use the type species of that=3D20
>>genus name at the time of establishment, or the=3D20
>>type specimen(s) of that species at the same=3D20
>>time, as (an) internal specifier(s)"?
>I agree that this change should be made, since=3D20
>specifiers may be species or specimens.
>Philip D. Cantino
>Professor and Associate Chair
>Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
>Ohio University
>Athens, OH 45701-2979
>Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
>Fax: (740) 593-1130

Michel Laurin
=3D46RE 2696, CNRS
Universit=3DE9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot
2, place Jussieu
case 7077
75005 Paris

tel. (33 1) 44 27 36 92

Secretary of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature


Feedback to <> is welcome!