Message 2005-05-0017: RE:PhyloCode

Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:37 -0500

[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - RE:PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - RE:PhyloCode]

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:37 -0500
From: [unknown]
Subject: RE:PhyloCode

An ordinary person probably also would not call a bird an amniote, or=
 a =3D
chordate, or a deuterostome, or a bilaterian, yet it belongs to all o=
f =3D
those groups. So for us to say that birds are reptiles and dinosaurs =
doesn=3DB4t mean that ordinary people would ever have to say, for exa=
mple, =3D
that the Thanksgiving dinosaur was roasted perfectly this year.  They=
could still call it a bird or a turkey.


>>> Yisrael Asper <> 12/03/05 21:03 >>>
Hello Michel and all

My concern is for the ordinary person more than for the scientists si=
language is the way we communicate scientist and nonscientist alike. =
ordinary person for example would not call a bird a dinosaur for inst=
ance. =3D
am not saying PhyloCode should not use old names only that it should =
redifine words but rather instead coin in such cases a new ones so th=
at =3D
old words would not be for PhyloCode and would be left to their fate =
dictionaries. People may still use them but if PhyloCode succeeds the=
n =3D
would not be a scientific names.


----- Original Message -----
=46rom: "Michel Laurin" <>
To: "Yisrael Asper" <>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode


>I read about the PhyloCode in Discover Magazine. The only thing that=
>frightening about it would be if names are redefined in it.

They cannot be redefined because they
have not really been defined under the old codes;
only a type is included, and that is the extent
of the definition (not much).

>People would not
>like to have to call birds Reptilia for instance.

Actually, many scientists who are against
the PhyloCode do place birds within Reptilia.

>So Ithink there should be
>a rule
>for PhyloCode set that whenever a would be PhyloCode definition for =
a =3D
>would otherwise differ from a definition already accepted even from
>PhyloCode, that a new term be made instead, with the otherwise old n=
>declared from the point of view of PhyloCode as describing a nonexis=

We have discussed this extensively and
the consensus is that we want to be able to reuse
old names, such as Reptilia, Dinosauria and
Osteichthys, even though they traditionally
referred to paraphyletic taxa.



>Yisrael Asper

Michel Laurin
FRE 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!