[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]
To: yisraelasper@comcast.net, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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 = =3D 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= =3D could still call it a bird or a turkey. Kevin >>> Yisrael Asper <yisraelasper@comcast.net> 12/03/05 21:03 >>> Hello Michel and all My concern is for the ordinary person more than for the scientists si= nce language is the way we communicate scientist and nonscientist alike. = An ordinary person for example would not call a bird a dinosaur for inst= ance. =3D I am not saying PhyloCode should not use old names only that it should = not redifine words but rather instead coin in such cases a new ones so th= at =3D the old words would not be for PhyloCode and would be left to their fate = in dictionaries. People may still use them but if PhyloCode succeeds the= n =3D they would not be a scientific names. Sincerely, Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Michel Laurin" <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr> To: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:54 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode Hello, >I read about the PhyloCode in Discover Magazine. The only thing that= =3D seems >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 word >would otherwise differ from a definition already accepted even from >PhyloCode, that a new term be made instead, with the otherwise old n= ame >being >declared from the point of view of PhyloCode as describing a nonexis= tent >category. 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. Sincerely, Michel >Yisrael Asper -- Michel Laurin FRE 2696, CNRS Universit=3DE9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot 2, place Jussieu case 7077 75005 Paris FRANCE tel. (33 1) 44 27 36 92 http://tolweb.org/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html Secretary of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature